Pulmonology

WASHINGTON – Patients with emphysema treated with one-way endobronchial values showed consistent improvement in lung function after 5 years compared with controls, based on data from 174 individuals.

One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.

The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.

Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).

Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.

The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁). At five years, the FEV₁ values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV₁ at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV₁ improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.

Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.

Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.

The results suggest that the FEV₁ improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.

The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
 

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

WASHINGTON – Patients with emphysema treated with one-way endobronchial values showed consistent improvement in lung function after 5 years compared with controls, based on data from 174 individuals.

One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.

The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.

Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).

Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.

The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁). At five years, the FEV₁ values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV₁ at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV₁ improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.

Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.

Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.

The results suggest that the FEV₁ improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.

The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
 

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

WASHINGTON – Patients with emphysema treated with one-way endobronchial values showed consistent improvement in lung function after 5 years compared with controls, based on data from 174 individuals.

One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.

The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.

Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).

Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.

The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁). At five years, the FEV₁ values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV₁ at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV₁ improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.

Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.

Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.

The results suggest that the FEV₁ improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.

The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
 

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

If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.

Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional? What if we actually paid attention, asked about it, and expended energy trying to relieve it? Could we improve quality of life and other outcomes too?

Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.

As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.

The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.

The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.

Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.

Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.

In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.

Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional? What if we actually paid attention, asked about it, and expended energy trying to relieve it? Could we improve quality of life and other outcomes too?

Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.

As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.

The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.

The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.

Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.

Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.

In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.

Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional? What if we actually paid attention, asked about it, and expended energy trying to relieve it? Could we improve quality of life and other outcomes too?

Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.

As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.

The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.

The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.

Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.

Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.

In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.

The meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.

The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
 

Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration

The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).

“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.

“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”

The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.

Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.

The meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.

The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
 

Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration

The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).

“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.

“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”

The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.

Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.

The meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.

The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
 

Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration

The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).

“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.

“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”

The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.

Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN DIEGO – A COVID-19 combination antiviral is the most important new drug primary care physicians have prescribed in recent years – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.

Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
 

Understanding the mechanism of action

Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.

“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.

“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.

Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.

Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.

When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.

Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.

“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.

Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
 

Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials

The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.

A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.

To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.

This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.

To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:

• Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
• Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
• Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.

Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
 

Important considerations

Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.

He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.

Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A COVID-19 combination antiviral is the most important new drug primary care physicians have prescribed in recent years – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.

Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
 

Understanding the mechanism of action

Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.

“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.

“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.

Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.

Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.

When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.

Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.

“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.

Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
 

Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials

The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.

A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.

To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.

This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.

To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:

• Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
• Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
• Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.

Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
 

Important considerations

Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.

He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.

Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A COVID-19 combination antiviral is the most important new drug primary care physicians have prescribed in recent years – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.

Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
 

Understanding the mechanism of action

Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.

“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.

“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.

Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.

Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.

When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.

Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.

“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.

Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
 

Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials

The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.

A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.

To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.

This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.

To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:

• Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
• Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
• Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.

Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
 

Important considerations

Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.

He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.

Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.

Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.

But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.

More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.

“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”

In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.

But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.

The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.

Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.

“We’re still seeing a number of patients diagnosed with vaping disorders, but it’s not top of mind,” said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
 

Where it started

Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.

In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.

“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”

“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”

In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.

“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.

CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.

But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.

“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.

Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.  

“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.

Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.

Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”

Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.

The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
 

The aftermath

The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.

Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.

“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.

Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.

Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.

“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”

Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.

The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.

That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.

But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.

But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.

But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”

Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.

“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”

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

Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.

But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.

More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.

“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”

In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.

But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.

The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.

Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.

“We’re still seeing a number of patients diagnosed with vaping disorders, but it’s not top of mind,” said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
 

Where it started

Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.

In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.

“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”

“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”

In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.

“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.

CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.

But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.

“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.

Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.  

“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.

Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.

Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”

Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.

The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
 

The aftermath

The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.

Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.

“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.

Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.

Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.

“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”

Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.

The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.

That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.

But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.

But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.

But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”

Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.

“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”

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

Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).

For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.

But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.

More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.

“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”

In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.

But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.

The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.

Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.

“We’re still seeing a number of patients diagnosed with vaping disorders, but it’s not top of mind,” said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
 

Where it started

Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.

In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.

“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”

“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”

In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.

“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.

CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.

But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.

“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.

Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.  

“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.

Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.

Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”

Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.

The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
 

The aftermath

The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.

Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.

“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.

Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.

Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.

“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”

Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.

The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.

That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.

But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.

But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.

But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”

Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.

“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”

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

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.