Latest News

TOPLINE:

Higher baseline counts of blood eosinophils (EOS) were associated with an increased risk for exacerbations in patients with asthma over 1 year, and higher baseline levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only oral corticosteroids (OCS) in asthma and asthma plus chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but linked to a decreased risk for all exacerbations in COPD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the multinational NOVELTY study to assess whether blood EOS counts and FeNO levels, alone and together, predict the risk for future exacerbations in patients with asthma, COPD, or both.
• Overall, 4319 patients were included in the EOS analysis (2138 with asthma, 1541 with COPD, and 640 with asthma plus COPD), and 7770 patients were included in the FeNO analysis (4166 with asthma, 2588 with COPD, and 1016 with asthma plus COPD).
• Baseline data included demographics, treatments, exacerbations, and lung function (spirometry and FeNO levels).
• Outcomes were assessed over the first year of follow‑up, and patients received usual care from their treating physicians.
• Exacerbation subtypes were categorized as all exacerbations, exacerbations treated with only antibiotics, and exacerbations treated with only OCS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher EOS counts at baseline were associated with an increased risk for all exacerbations in asthma (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.09; P = .033), meaning each doubling of the count corresponded to a 9% higher exacerbation rate; a similar trend of higher risk was seen in COPD that did not reach statistical significance.
• Higher FeNO levels at baseline were associated with a lower risk for all exacerbations in COPD (IRR, 0.91; P = .025). In asthma, FeNO levels showed no association with an overall risk for exacerbations; in asthma plus COPD, neither biomarker predicted the overall risk.
• In asthma, higher FeNO levels at baseline were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.16) but decreased odds of exacerbations treated with only antibiotics (OR, 0.75); in asthma plus COPD, higher FeNO levels were also linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (OR, 1.55; P < .05 for all).
• In an analysis including both biomarkers, higher EOS counts at baseline independently predicted all exacerbations in asthma; however, both higher EOS counts and lower FeNO levels were independently associated with a higher risk for all exacerbations in COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] finding is of importance for future studies and daily clinical practice as it indicates that assessment of exacerbation subtype might improve personalized treatment management,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Susan Muiser, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. It was published online on April 21, 2026, in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

Diagnoses were assigned by treating physicians without standardized diagnostic criteria. Physicians had access to type 2 inflammation biomarker results, which may have influenced treatment decisions. Exacerbation subtypes were categorized using medical records and patient-reported information, introducing a potential recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The NOVELTY study was funded by AstraZeneca. Four authors reported being employees of AstraZeneca, with 2 of them also being shareholders. Several authors disclosed receiving travel grants, research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and support to attend meetings; serving on advisory boards; and holding stock or stock options with multiple pharmaceutical companies and organizations, including AstraZeneca and WebMD Global.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher baseline counts of blood eosinophils (EOS) were associated with an increased risk for exacerbations in patients with asthma over 1 year, and higher baseline levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only oral corticosteroids (OCS) in asthma and asthma plus chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but linked to a decreased risk for all exacerbations in COPD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the multinational NOVELTY study to assess whether blood EOS counts and FeNO levels, alone and together, predict the risk for future exacerbations in patients with asthma, COPD, or both.
• Overall, 4319 patients were included in the EOS analysis (2138 with asthma, 1541 with COPD, and 640 with asthma plus COPD), and 7770 patients were included in the FeNO analysis (4166 with asthma, 2588 with COPD, and 1016 with asthma plus COPD).
• Baseline data included demographics, treatments, exacerbations, and lung function (spirometry and FeNO levels).
• Outcomes were assessed over the first year of follow‑up, and patients received usual care from their treating physicians.
• Exacerbation subtypes were categorized as all exacerbations, exacerbations treated with only antibiotics, and exacerbations treated with only OCS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher EOS counts at baseline were associated with an increased risk for all exacerbations in asthma (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.09; P = .033), meaning each doubling of the count corresponded to a 9% higher exacerbation rate; a similar trend of higher risk was seen in COPD that did not reach statistical significance.
• Higher FeNO levels at baseline were associated with a lower risk for all exacerbations in COPD (IRR, 0.91; P = .025). In asthma, FeNO levels showed no association with an overall risk for exacerbations; in asthma plus COPD, neither biomarker predicted the overall risk.
• In asthma, higher FeNO levels at baseline were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.16) but decreased odds of exacerbations treated with only antibiotics (OR, 0.75); in asthma plus COPD, higher FeNO levels were also linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (OR, 1.55; P < .05 for all).
• In an analysis including both biomarkers, higher EOS counts at baseline independently predicted all exacerbations in asthma; however, both higher EOS counts and lower FeNO levels were independently associated with a higher risk for all exacerbations in COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] finding is of importance for future studies and daily clinical practice as it indicates that assessment of exacerbation subtype might improve personalized treatment management,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Susan Muiser, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. It was published online on April 21, 2026, in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

Diagnoses were assigned by treating physicians without standardized diagnostic criteria. Physicians had access to type 2 inflammation biomarker results, which may have influenced treatment decisions. Exacerbation subtypes were categorized using medical records and patient-reported information, introducing a potential recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The NOVELTY study was funded by AstraZeneca. Four authors reported being employees of AstraZeneca, with 2 of them also being shareholders. Several authors disclosed receiving travel grants, research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and support to attend meetings; serving on advisory boards; and holding stock or stock options with multiple pharmaceutical companies and organizations, including AstraZeneca and WebMD Global.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher baseline counts of blood eosinophils (EOS) were associated with an increased risk for exacerbations in patients with asthma over 1 year, and higher baseline levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only oral corticosteroids (OCS) in asthma and asthma plus chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but linked to a decreased risk for all exacerbations in COPD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the multinational NOVELTY study to assess whether blood EOS counts and FeNO levels, alone and together, predict the risk for future exacerbations in patients with asthma, COPD, or both.
• Overall, 4319 patients were included in the EOS analysis (2138 with asthma, 1541 with COPD, and 640 with asthma plus COPD), and 7770 patients were included in the FeNO analysis (4166 with asthma, 2588 with COPD, and 1016 with asthma plus COPD).
• Baseline data included demographics, treatments, exacerbations, and lung function (spirometry and FeNO levels).
• Outcomes were assessed over the first year of follow‑up, and patients received usual care from their treating physicians.
• Exacerbation subtypes were categorized as all exacerbations, exacerbations treated with only antibiotics, and exacerbations treated with only OCS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher EOS counts at baseline were associated with an increased risk for all exacerbations in asthma (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.09; P = .033), meaning each doubling of the count corresponded to a 9% higher exacerbation rate; a similar trend of higher risk was seen in COPD that did not reach statistical significance.
• Higher FeNO levels at baseline were associated with a lower risk for all exacerbations in COPD (IRR, 0.91; P = .025). In asthma, FeNO levels showed no association with an overall risk for exacerbations; in asthma plus COPD, neither biomarker predicted the overall risk.
• In asthma, higher FeNO levels at baseline were linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.16) but decreased odds of exacerbations treated with only antibiotics (OR, 0.75); in asthma plus COPD, higher FeNO levels were also linked to increased odds of exacerbations treated with only OCS (OR, 1.55; P < .05 for all).
• In an analysis including both biomarkers, higher EOS counts at baseline independently predicted all exacerbations in asthma; however, both higher EOS counts and lower FeNO levels were independently associated with a higher risk for all exacerbations in COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] finding is of importance for future studies and daily clinical practice as it indicates that assessment of exacerbation subtype might improve personalized treatment management,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Susan Muiser, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. It was published online on April 21, 2026, in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

Diagnoses were assigned by treating physicians without standardized diagnostic criteria. Physicians had access to type 2 inflammation biomarker results, which may have influenced treatment decisions. Exacerbation subtypes were categorized using medical records and patient-reported information, introducing a potential recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The NOVELTY study was funded by AstraZeneca. Four authors reported being employees of AstraZeneca, with 2 of them also being shareholders. Several authors disclosed receiving travel grants, research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and support to attend meetings; serving on advisory boards; and holding stock or stock options with multiple pharmaceutical companies and organizations, including AstraZeneca and WebMD Global.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.