Pulmonary Health Hub

Tobacco use among middle and high school students has dropped since 2011, and e-cigarettes have replaced cigarettes as their favorite form of tobacco, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The prevalence of current tobacco use – defined as use on 1 or more days in the past 30 days – among high schoolers fell from 24.2% in 2011 to 19.6% in 2017, and middle school use decreased from 7.5% to 5.6% over that same time. That means the number of youth tobacco users went from almost 4.6 million in 2011 to slightly more than 3.6 million in 2017, Teresa W. Wang, PhD, and her associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang TW et al. MMWR. 2018;67(22):629-33.

Tobacco use among middle and high school students has dropped since 2011, and e-cigarettes have replaced cigarettes as their favorite form of tobacco, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The prevalence of current tobacco use – defined as use on 1 or more days in the past 30 days – among high schoolers fell from 24.2% in 2011 to 19.6% in 2017, and middle school use decreased from 7.5% to 5.6% over that same time. That means the number of youth tobacco users went from almost 4.6 million in 2011 to slightly more than 3.6 million in 2017, Teresa W. Wang, PhD, and her associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang TW et al. MMWR. 2018;67(22):629-33.

Tobacco use among middle and high school students has dropped since 2011, and e-cigarettes have replaced cigarettes as their favorite form of tobacco, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The prevalence of current tobacco use – defined as use on 1 or more days in the past 30 days – among high schoolers fell from 24.2% in 2011 to 19.6% in 2017, and middle school use decreased from 7.5% to 5.6% over that same time. That means the number of youth tobacco users went from almost 4.6 million in 2011 to slightly more than 3.6 million in 2017, Teresa W. Wang, PhD, and her associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang TW et al. MMWR. 2018;67(22):629-33.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – Very few patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have connective tissue disease antibodies, suggesting that IPF is a “robust diagnosis” when made on the basis of standard diagnostic tests, it was reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“The results were perhaps not what we’d expected,” said Caroline V. Cotton, PhD, of the Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease at the University of Liverpool, England.

Sarah Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Cotton CV et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.206.
 

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – Very few patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have connective tissue disease antibodies, suggesting that IPF is a “robust diagnosis” when made on the basis of standard diagnostic tests, it was reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“The results were perhaps not what we’d expected,” said Caroline V. Cotton, PhD, of the Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease at the University of Liverpool, England.

Sarah Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Cotton CV et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.206.
 

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – Very few patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have connective tissue disease antibodies, suggesting that IPF is a “robust diagnosis” when made on the basis of standard diagnostic tests, it was reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“The results were perhaps not what we’d expected,” said Caroline V. Cotton, PhD, of the Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease at the University of Liverpool, England.

Sarah Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Cotton CV et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.206.
 

TORONTO – While C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and proadrenomedullin are associated with development of severe clinical outcomes in children with lower respiratory tract infections, proadrenomedullin is most strongly associated with disease severity, preliminary results from a prospective cohort study showed.

“Despite the fact that pneumonia guidelines call the site of care decision the most important decision in the management of pediatric pneumonia, no validated risk stratification tools exist for pediatric lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI),” lead study author Todd A. Florin, MD, said at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting. “Biomarkers offer an objective means of classifying disease severity and clinical outcomes.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Preliminary data that Dr. Florin presented at PAS found that the median CRP, PCT, and proADM did not differ by gender, race, ethnicity, or insurance status. “In addition, there were not significant differences in the distribution of disease severity by biomarker performed, with approximately 27% of patients being classified as mild, 66% as moderate, and 7% as severe,” he said.

The median CRP was 2.4 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 2.5 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 6.25 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .002). The median PCT was 0.16 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.26 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.49 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .047). Meanwhile, the median proADM was 0.53 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.59 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.81 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease also reaching statistical significance (P less than .0001).

Next, the researchers performed logistic regression of each biomarker individually and in combination. They found that proADM alone was associated with the largest odds for severe LRTI disease (odds ratio, 13.1), compared with CRP alone (OR 1.6) and PCT alone (OR 1.4), and had the best ability to discriminate those developing severe vs. nonsevere disease (area under the receiving operating curve of 0.72, vs. 0.67 and 0.60, respectively). When CRP and PCT markers were combined with proADM, they were no longer associated with severe disease, while a strong association with proADM remained significant.

Dr. Florin acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that requiring collection of blood samples may have resulted in an enrollment bias toward patients receiving phlebotomy or IV line placement in the ED. “In addition, the children in the moderate-severity group are likely more heterogeneous than the other two severity groups,” he said. “Finally, given that this is a single-center study, we had a relatively small number of outcomes for some of the individual severity measures, which may have limited power and precision.”

He concluded his presentation by saying that he is “cautiously optimistic” about the study results. “As is the case in many biomarker studies, I do not anticipate that any single biomarker will be the magic bullet for predicting disease severity in pediatric CAP,” Dr. Florin said. “It will likely be a combination of clinical factors and several biomarkers that will achieve optimal prognostic ability. That said, our results suggest that similar to adult studies, proADM appears to have the strongest association with severe disease, compared with CRP and PCT. Combinations of biomarkers did not perform better than proADM alone. With the advent of rapid point-of-care diagnostics, these markers may have a role in management and site-of-care decisions for children with LRTI.”

The study received funding support from the Gerber Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Dr. Florin reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – While C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and proadrenomedullin are associated with development of severe clinical outcomes in children with lower respiratory tract infections, proadrenomedullin is most strongly associated with disease severity, preliminary results from a prospective cohort study showed.

“Despite the fact that pneumonia guidelines call the site of care decision the most important decision in the management of pediatric pneumonia, no validated risk stratification tools exist for pediatric lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI),” lead study author Todd A. Florin, MD, said at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting. “Biomarkers offer an objective means of classifying disease severity and clinical outcomes.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Preliminary data that Dr. Florin presented at PAS found that the median CRP, PCT, and proADM did not differ by gender, race, ethnicity, or insurance status. “In addition, there were not significant differences in the distribution of disease severity by biomarker performed, with approximately 27% of patients being classified as mild, 66% as moderate, and 7% as severe,” he said.

The median CRP was 2.4 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 2.5 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 6.25 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .002). The median PCT was 0.16 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.26 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.49 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .047). Meanwhile, the median proADM was 0.53 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.59 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.81 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease also reaching statistical significance (P less than .0001).

Next, the researchers performed logistic regression of each biomarker individually and in combination. They found that proADM alone was associated with the largest odds for severe LRTI disease (odds ratio, 13.1), compared with CRP alone (OR 1.6) and PCT alone (OR 1.4), and had the best ability to discriminate those developing severe vs. nonsevere disease (area under the receiving operating curve of 0.72, vs. 0.67 and 0.60, respectively). When CRP and PCT markers were combined with proADM, they were no longer associated with severe disease, while a strong association with proADM remained significant.

Dr. Florin acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that requiring collection of blood samples may have resulted in an enrollment bias toward patients receiving phlebotomy or IV line placement in the ED. “In addition, the children in the moderate-severity group are likely more heterogeneous than the other two severity groups,” he said. “Finally, given that this is a single-center study, we had a relatively small number of outcomes for some of the individual severity measures, which may have limited power and precision.”

He concluded his presentation by saying that he is “cautiously optimistic” about the study results. “As is the case in many biomarker studies, I do not anticipate that any single biomarker will be the magic bullet for predicting disease severity in pediatric CAP,” Dr. Florin said. “It will likely be a combination of clinical factors and several biomarkers that will achieve optimal prognostic ability. That said, our results suggest that similar to adult studies, proADM appears to have the strongest association with severe disease, compared with CRP and PCT. Combinations of biomarkers did not perform better than proADM alone. With the advent of rapid point-of-care diagnostics, these markers may have a role in management and site-of-care decisions for children with LRTI.”

The study received funding support from the Gerber Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Dr. Florin reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – While C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and proadrenomedullin are associated with development of severe clinical outcomes in children with lower respiratory tract infections, proadrenomedullin is most strongly associated with disease severity, preliminary results from a prospective cohort study showed.

“Despite the fact that pneumonia guidelines call the site of care decision the most important decision in the management of pediatric pneumonia, no validated risk stratification tools exist for pediatric lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI),” lead study author Todd A. Florin, MD, said at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting. “Biomarkers offer an objective means of classifying disease severity and clinical outcomes.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Preliminary data that Dr. Florin presented at PAS found that the median CRP, PCT, and proADM did not differ by gender, race, ethnicity, or insurance status. “In addition, there were not significant differences in the distribution of disease severity by biomarker performed, with approximately 27% of patients being classified as mild, 66% as moderate, and 7% as severe,” he said.

The median CRP was 2.4 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 2.5 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 6.25 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .002). The median PCT was 0.16 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.26 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.49 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease reaching statistical significance (P = .047). Meanwhile, the median proADM was 0.53 ng/mL in those with mild disease, 0.59 ng/mL in those with moderate disease, and 0.81 ng/mL in those with severe disease, with the difference between the two subclasses of nonsevere disease and moderate disease and severe disease also reaching statistical significance (P less than .0001).

Next, the researchers performed logistic regression of each biomarker individually and in combination. They found that proADM alone was associated with the largest odds for severe LRTI disease (odds ratio, 13.1), compared with CRP alone (OR 1.6) and PCT alone (OR 1.4), and had the best ability to discriminate those developing severe vs. nonsevere disease (area under the receiving operating curve of 0.72, vs. 0.67 and 0.60, respectively). When CRP and PCT markers were combined with proADM, they were no longer associated with severe disease, while a strong association with proADM remained significant.

Dr. Florin acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that requiring collection of blood samples may have resulted in an enrollment bias toward patients receiving phlebotomy or IV line placement in the ED. “In addition, the children in the moderate-severity group are likely more heterogeneous than the other two severity groups,” he said. “Finally, given that this is a single-center study, we had a relatively small number of outcomes for some of the individual severity measures, which may have limited power and precision.”

He concluded his presentation by saying that he is “cautiously optimistic” about the study results. “As is the case in many biomarker studies, I do not anticipate that any single biomarker will be the magic bullet for predicting disease severity in pediatric CAP,” Dr. Florin said. “It will likely be a combination of clinical factors and several biomarkers that will achieve optimal prognostic ability. That said, our results suggest that similar to adult studies, proADM appears to have the strongest association with severe disease, compared with CRP and PCT. Combinations of biomarkers did not perform better than proADM alone. With the advent of rapid point-of-care diagnostics, these markers may have a role in management and site-of-care decisions for children with LRTI.”

The study received funding support from the Gerber Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Dr. Florin reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

CHICAGO - Uptake of recommended low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has been dismal. Blood-based assays are an attractive alternative being explored by the Circulating Cell–Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) project. Interim results of a CCGA study of 561 individuals without cancer and 118 patients with lung cancers of all stages have found that a trio of assays searching for molecular signatures in plasma cell-free DNA achieved roughly 50% sensitivity for detection of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and 91% sensitivity for detection of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, discusses the science behind these assays, how they may fill an unmet medical need, and ongoing work to bring them into the clinic.

CHICAGO - Uptake of recommended low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has been dismal. Blood-based assays are an attractive alternative being explored by the Circulating Cell–Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) project. Interim results of a CCGA study of 561 individuals without cancer and 118 patients with lung cancers of all stages have found that a trio of assays searching for molecular signatures in plasma cell-free DNA achieved roughly 50% sensitivity for detection of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and 91% sensitivity for detection of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, discusses the science behind these assays, how they may fill an unmet medical need, and ongoing work to bring them into the clinic.

CHICAGO - Uptake of recommended low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has been dismal. Blood-based assays are an attractive alternative being explored by the Circulating Cell–Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) project. Interim results of a CCGA study of 561 individuals without cancer and 118 patients with lung cancers of all stages have found that a trio of assays searching for molecular signatures in plasma cell-free DNA achieved roughly 50% sensitivity for detection of early-stage (stage I-IIIA) lung cancers and 91% sensitivity for detection of late-stage (stage IIIB-IV) lung cancers.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Geoffrey R. Oxnard, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, discusses the science behind these assays, how they may fill an unmet medical need, and ongoing work to bring them into the clinic.

Many U.S. hospitals still did not have influenza vaccination requirements for health care personnel as of summer 2017, suggested the results of a national survey.

Nearly two-thirds of hospitals had mandatory influenza vaccination in place in 2017, up from just one-third in 2013, according to survey responses submitted by infection preventionists working at Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

By contrast, the proportion of VA hospitals with such requirements increased only slightly, from 1.3% in 2013 to just 4.1% in 2017 (P = .29), the report showed.

Penalties for not complying with the policy were not universal in hospitals with mandates, they added. Only 74% said they had such penalties, and 13% allowed health care personnel to decline influenza vaccination without a specified reason.

After the survey responses were received, the VA issued a directive stating that all health care personnel should receive annual influenza vaccination and should wear masks during influenza season, Dr. Greene noted.

That directive is in line with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which have stated that all health care personnel should receive influenza vaccination each year.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has set a goal of 90% of health care personnel to be vaccinated by 2020, Dr. Green and his coauthors noted.

Mandating influenza vaccination is just one proven successful strategy for increasing coverage at hospitals, according to the study authors. Other approaches include influenza education, incentives, free and easy access to vaccination, and annual campaigns directed at health care personnel, as well as written policies describing the vaccination goal.

“Regardless of whether an organization has an official mandate for vaccinations, establishing a written policy that states the organizational commitment to increasing vaccination rates is among the recommended strategies for improving vaccination coverage among health care personnel,” they wrote.

Dr. Greene and his coauthors reported receiving grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Patient Safety Center of Inquiry during the conduct of the study. One study coauthor reported personal fees from Jvion and from Doximity outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Greene MT et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(2):e180143.

Many U.S. hospitals still did not have influenza vaccination requirements for health care personnel as of summer 2017, suggested the results of a national survey.

Nearly two-thirds of hospitals had mandatory influenza vaccination in place in 2017, up from just one-third in 2013, according to survey responses submitted by infection preventionists working at Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

By contrast, the proportion of VA hospitals with such requirements increased only slightly, from 1.3% in 2013 to just 4.1% in 2017 (P = .29), the report showed.

Penalties for not complying with the policy were not universal in hospitals with mandates, they added. Only 74% said they had such penalties, and 13% allowed health care personnel to decline influenza vaccination without a specified reason.

After the survey responses were received, the VA issued a directive stating that all health care personnel should receive annual influenza vaccination and should wear masks during influenza season, Dr. Greene noted.

That directive is in line with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which have stated that all health care personnel should receive influenza vaccination each year.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has set a goal of 90% of health care personnel to be vaccinated by 2020, Dr. Green and his coauthors noted.

Mandating influenza vaccination is just one proven successful strategy for increasing coverage at hospitals, according to the study authors. Other approaches include influenza education, incentives, free and easy access to vaccination, and annual campaigns directed at health care personnel, as well as written policies describing the vaccination goal.

“Regardless of whether an organization has an official mandate for vaccinations, establishing a written policy that states the organizational commitment to increasing vaccination rates is among the recommended strategies for improving vaccination coverage among health care personnel,” they wrote.

Dr. Greene and his coauthors reported receiving grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Patient Safety Center of Inquiry during the conduct of the study. One study coauthor reported personal fees from Jvion and from Doximity outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Greene MT et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(2):e180143.

Many U.S. hospitals still did not have influenza vaccination requirements for health care personnel as of summer 2017, suggested the results of a national survey.

Nearly two-thirds of hospitals had mandatory influenza vaccination in place in 2017, up from just one-third in 2013, according to survey responses submitted by infection preventionists working at Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

By contrast, the proportion of VA hospitals with such requirements increased only slightly, from 1.3% in 2013 to just 4.1% in 2017 (P = .29), the report showed.

Penalties for not complying with the policy were not universal in hospitals with mandates, they added. Only 74% said they had such penalties, and 13% allowed health care personnel to decline influenza vaccination without a specified reason.

After the survey responses were received, the VA issued a directive stating that all health care personnel should receive annual influenza vaccination and should wear masks during influenza season, Dr. Greene noted.

That directive is in line with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which have stated that all health care personnel should receive influenza vaccination each year.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has set a goal of 90% of health care personnel to be vaccinated by 2020, Dr. Green and his coauthors noted.

Mandating influenza vaccination is just one proven successful strategy for increasing coverage at hospitals, according to the study authors. Other approaches include influenza education, incentives, free and easy access to vaccination, and annual campaigns directed at health care personnel, as well as written policies describing the vaccination goal.

“Regardless of whether an organization has an official mandate for vaccinations, establishing a written policy that states the organizational commitment to increasing vaccination rates is among the recommended strategies for improving vaccination coverage among health care personnel,” they wrote.

Dr. Greene and his coauthors reported receiving grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Patient Safety Center of Inquiry during the conduct of the study. One study coauthor reported personal fees from Jvion and from Doximity outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Greene MT et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(2):e180143.

In the article, “Point-of-care ultrasound: Coming soon to primary care?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:70-79), Bornemann et al outline potential uses for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), describing in detail its role in cardiovascular and pulmonary exams, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, and diagnosing deep vein thrombosis. The American Academy of Family Physicians, in the Recommended Curriculum Guidelines for Family Medicine Residents (available at: https://www.aafp.org/medical-school-residency/program-directors/curriculum.html), also discusses obstetric and gynecologic uses for POCUS, such as determining fetal presentation and distinguishing viable pregnancy from miscarriage.

In my practice, I most often use POCUS for gynecologic and pregnancy-related issues, such as to ensure proper placement of an intrauterine device (IUD) when the strings are not visible, to determine gestational age in patients with uncertain last menstrual periods, and to confirm pregnancy location when patients have risk factors for, or symptoms suggestive of, ectopic pregnancy.

The breadth of care provided in family medicine is what makes it special. We must make sure that as we expand our care with new technologies, we do not trade tried and true uses of those technologies for newer ones.

Zoey Thill, MD, MPP
Bronx, NY

In the article, “Point-of-care ultrasound: Coming soon to primary care?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:70-79), Bornemann et al outline potential uses for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), describing in detail its role in cardiovascular and pulmonary exams, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, and diagnosing deep vein thrombosis. The American Academy of Family Physicians, in the Recommended Curriculum Guidelines for Family Medicine Residents (available at: https://www.aafp.org/medical-school-residency/program-directors/curriculum.html), also discusses obstetric and gynecologic uses for POCUS, such as determining fetal presentation and distinguishing viable pregnancy from miscarriage.

In my practice, I most often use POCUS for gynecologic and pregnancy-related issues, such as to ensure proper placement of an intrauterine device (IUD) when the strings are not visible, to determine gestational age in patients with uncertain last menstrual periods, and to confirm pregnancy location when patients have risk factors for, or symptoms suggestive of, ectopic pregnancy.

The breadth of care provided in family medicine is what makes it special. We must make sure that as we expand our care with new technologies, we do not trade tried and true uses of those technologies for newer ones.

Zoey Thill, MD, MPP
Bronx, NY

In the article, “Point-of-care ultrasound: Coming soon to primary care?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:70-79), Bornemann et al outline potential uses for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), describing in detail its role in cardiovascular and pulmonary exams, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, and diagnosing deep vein thrombosis. The American Academy of Family Physicians, in the Recommended Curriculum Guidelines for Family Medicine Residents (available at: https://www.aafp.org/medical-school-residency/program-directors/curriculum.html), also discusses obstetric and gynecologic uses for POCUS, such as determining fetal presentation and distinguishing viable pregnancy from miscarriage.

In my practice, I most often use POCUS for gynecologic and pregnancy-related issues, such as to ensure proper placement of an intrauterine device (IUD) when the strings are not visible, to determine gestational age in patients with uncertain last menstrual periods, and to confirm pregnancy location when patients have risk factors for, or symptoms suggestive of, ectopic pregnancy.

The breadth of care provided in family medicine is what makes it special. We must make sure that as we expand our care with new technologies, we do not trade tried and true uses of those technologies for newer ones.

Zoey Thill, MD, MPP
Bronx, NY

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial including 1142 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV₁] <70%, postbronchodilator FEV₁ <80%) found that daily azithromycin 250 mg reduced acute exacerbations more than placebo over one year.¹ Researchers recruited patients who were using supplemental oxygen, had required glucocorticoids, or had been hospitalized for an acute exacerbation in the last year. Patients with asthma, resting heart rate >100 beats/min, prolonged QTc interval (or on prolonging medications), or hearing impairment were excluded.

Azithromycin increased the median time to first exacerbation (defined as increase or new onset of cough, sputum, wheeze, and chest tightness for 3 days requiring antibiotics or systemic steroids) compared with the placebo group (266 days vs 174 days; P<.001) and reduced the risk of an acute exacerbation per patient year (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% confidence [CI], 0.63-0.84). It also reduced the rate of acute exacerbations per patient year (1.83 vs 1.43; P=.01; rate ratio=0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95). The number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation was 2.86.

No differences in death from any cause (3% vs 4%; P=.87), death from respiratory cause (2% vs 1%; P=.48), or death from cardiovascular cause (0.2% vs 0.2%; P=1.0) were found between azithromycin and placebo. Nor did rates of hospitalizations for acute exacerbations differ.

The groups also showed no significant difference in serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of medication. Notably, more patients in the azithromycin group had audiogram-confirmed hearing loss (25% vs 20%; P=.04), although the authors state that their criteria for hearing loss may have been too stringent because hearing improved on repeat testing whether or not the study drug was discontinued. In addition, more patients in the placebo group developed nasopharyngeal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31% vs 12%; P<.001).

Older ex-smokers on long-term O₂ benefit most from the antibiotic

A retrospective subgroup analysis of the RCT identified patients who benefited most from daily azithromycin therapy.² Compared with placebo, azithromycin decreased the time to first exacerbation in patients >65 years (542 patients; HR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74), but not patients ≤65 years (571 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.04).

The azithromycin group also demonstrated decreased time to first exacerbation in ex-smokers (867 patients; HR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and patients on long-term oxygen (659 patients; HR=0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) but not current smokers (246 patients; HR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.38) or patients not using long-term oxygen (454 patients; HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.03).

Azithromycin administration decreased exacerbations in patients with GOLD stages II (292 patients; HR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and III (451 patients; HR=0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90), but not stage IV (370 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08). The significance of the results is limited because the study was not originally powered for this level of subgroup analysis.

Continue to: Smaller study shows similar results

 

 

Smaller study shows similar results

A smaller RCT of 92 patients that evaluated exacerbation rates with azithromycin and placebo recruited patients with at least 3 acute COPD exacerbations in the previous year.³

Compared with placebo, oral azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) increased the time between exacerbations over a 12-month period (59 days vs 130 days; P=.001). It also reduced the exacerbation rate per person per year (1.94 vs 3.22; risk ratio=0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84) but didn’t change the hospitalization rate (odds ratio=1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.7).

No difference in serious adverse events was found between the azithromycin and placebo groups (3 patients vs 5 patients; P=NS), but an increase in diarrhea (9 patients vs 1 patient; P=.015) was noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

An evidence-based guideline by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society recommends long-term macrolide therapy to prevent acute exacerbations in patients >40 years with moderate or severe COPD and a history of ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year despite maximized inhaler therapy (Grade 2A, weak recommendation, high-quality evidence).⁴ The guideline also states that the duration and optimal dosages are unknown.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial including 1142 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV₁] <70%, postbronchodilator FEV₁ <80%) found that daily azithromycin 250 mg reduced acute exacerbations more than placebo over one year.¹ Researchers recruited patients who were using supplemental oxygen, had required glucocorticoids, or had been hospitalized for an acute exacerbation in the last year. Patients with asthma, resting heart rate >100 beats/min, prolonged QTc interval (or on prolonging medications), or hearing impairment were excluded.

Azithromycin increased the median time to first exacerbation (defined as increase or new onset of cough, sputum, wheeze, and chest tightness for 3 days requiring antibiotics or systemic steroids) compared with the placebo group (266 days vs 174 days; P<.001) and reduced the risk of an acute exacerbation per patient year (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% confidence [CI], 0.63-0.84). It also reduced the rate of acute exacerbations per patient year (1.83 vs 1.43; P=.01; rate ratio=0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95). The number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation was 2.86.

No differences in death from any cause (3% vs 4%; P=.87), death from respiratory cause (2% vs 1%; P=.48), or death from cardiovascular cause (0.2% vs 0.2%; P=1.0) were found between azithromycin and placebo. Nor did rates of hospitalizations for acute exacerbations differ.

The groups also showed no significant difference in serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of medication. Notably, more patients in the azithromycin group had audiogram-confirmed hearing loss (25% vs 20%; P=.04), although the authors state that their criteria for hearing loss may have been too stringent because hearing improved on repeat testing whether or not the study drug was discontinued. In addition, more patients in the placebo group developed nasopharyngeal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31% vs 12%; P<.001).

Older ex-smokers on long-term O₂ benefit most from the antibiotic

A retrospective subgroup analysis of the RCT identified patients who benefited most from daily azithromycin therapy.² Compared with placebo, azithromycin decreased the time to first exacerbation in patients >65 years (542 patients; HR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74), but not patients ≤65 years (571 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.04).

The azithromycin group also demonstrated decreased time to first exacerbation in ex-smokers (867 patients; HR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and patients on long-term oxygen (659 patients; HR=0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) but not current smokers (246 patients; HR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.38) or patients not using long-term oxygen (454 patients; HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.03).

Azithromycin administration decreased exacerbations in patients with GOLD stages II (292 patients; HR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and III (451 patients; HR=0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90), but not stage IV (370 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08). The significance of the results is limited because the study was not originally powered for this level of subgroup analysis.

Continue to: Smaller study shows similar results

 

 

Smaller study shows similar results

A smaller RCT of 92 patients that evaluated exacerbation rates with azithromycin and placebo recruited patients with at least 3 acute COPD exacerbations in the previous year.³

Compared with placebo, oral azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) increased the time between exacerbations over a 12-month period (59 days vs 130 days; P=.001). It also reduced the exacerbation rate per person per year (1.94 vs 3.22; risk ratio=0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84) but didn’t change the hospitalization rate (odds ratio=1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.7).

No difference in serious adverse events was found between the azithromycin and placebo groups (3 patients vs 5 patients; P=NS), but an increase in diarrhea (9 patients vs 1 patient; P=.015) was noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

An evidence-based guideline by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society recommends long-term macrolide therapy to prevent acute exacerbations in patients >40 years with moderate or severe COPD and a history of ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year despite maximized inhaler therapy (Grade 2A, weak recommendation, high-quality evidence).⁴ The guideline also states that the duration and optimal dosages are unknown.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial including 1142 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV₁] <70%, postbronchodilator FEV₁ <80%) found that daily azithromycin 250 mg reduced acute exacerbations more than placebo over one year.¹ Researchers recruited patients who were using supplemental oxygen, had required glucocorticoids, or had been hospitalized for an acute exacerbation in the last year. Patients with asthma, resting heart rate >100 beats/min, prolonged QTc interval (or on prolonging medications), or hearing impairment were excluded.

Azithromycin increased the median time to first exacerbation (defined as increase or new onset of cough, sputum, wheeze, and chest tightness for 3 days requiring antibiotics or systemic steroids) compared with the placebo group (266 days vs 174 days; P<.001) and reduced the risk of an acute exacerbation per patient year (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% confidence [CI], 0.63-0.84). It also reduced the rate of acute exacerbations per patient year (1.83 vs 1.43; P=.01; rate ratio=0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95). The number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation was 2.86.

No differences in death from any cause (3% vs 4%; P=.87), death from respiratory cause (2% vs 1%; P=.48), or death from cardiovascular cause (0.2% vs 0.2%; P=1.0) were found between azithromycin and placebo. Nor did rates of hospitalizations for acute exacerbations differ.

The groups also showed no significant difference in serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of medication. Notably, more patients in the azithromycin group had audiogram-confirmed hearing loss (25% vs 20%; P=.04), although the authors state that their criteria for hearing loss may have been too stringent because hearing improved on repeat testing whether or not the study drug was discontinued. In addition, more patients in the placebo group developed nasopharyngeal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31% vs 12%; P<.001).

Older ex-smokers on long-term O₂ benefit most from the antibiotic

A retrospective subgroup analysis of the RCT identified patients who benefited most from daily azithromycin therapy.² Compared with placebo, azithromycin decreased the time to first exacerbation in patients >65 years (542 patients; HR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74), but not patients ≤65 years (571 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.04).

The azithromycin group also demonstrated decreased time to first exacerbation in ex-smokers (867 patients; HR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and patients on long-term oxygen (659 patients; HR=0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) but not current smokers (246 patients; HR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.38) or patients not using long-term oxygen (454 patients; HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.03).

Azithromycin administration decreased exacerbations in patients with GOLD stages II (292 patients; HR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and III (451 patients; HR=0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90), but not stage IV (370 patients; HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08). The significance of the results is limited because the study was not originally powered for this level of subgroup analysis.

Continue to: Smaller study shows similar results

 

 

Smaller study shows similar results

A smaller RCT of 92 patients that evaluated exacerbation rates with azithromycin and placebo recruited patients with at least 3 acute COPD exacerbations in the previous year.³

Compared with placebo, oral azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) increased the time between exacerbations over a 12-month period (59 days vs 130 days; P=.001). It also reduced the exacerbation rate per person per year (1.94 vs 3.22; risk ratio=0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84) but didn’t change the hospitalization rate (odds ratio=1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.7).

No difference in serious adverse events was found between the azithromycin and placebo groups (3 patients vs 5 patients; P=NS), but an increase in diarrhea (9 patients vs 1 patient; P=.015) was noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

An evidence-based guideline by the American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society recommends long-term macrolide therapy to prevent acute exacerbations in patients >40 years with moderate or severe COPD and a history of ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year despite maximized inhaler therapy (Grade 2A, weak recommendation, high-quality evidence).⁴ The guideline also states that the duration and optimal dosages are unknown.

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]