Pulmonology

This article is part of a series from Medscape on vaping.

Every day, Sonia Sharma, PA, meets people like Natalie H., who is trying to quit vaping.

Natalie, a member of the nicotine addiction support group at the University of California San Francisco’s Fontana Tobacco Treatment Center, switched from traditional cigarettes to vaping but found the electronic version just as addictive and eventually decided to quit using nicotine completely.

“I went from being an occasional cigarette smoker, a few a month, to a daily vaper,” said Natalie, who preferred not to give her last name to protect her privacy. “Vaping made my nicotine addiction worse, not better.”

“We have people tell us they vape before their feet hit the ground in the morning,” said Ms. Sharma, who coleads Natalie’s support group at UCSF. Ms. Sharma has met individuals who had smoked four to five cigarettes a day, switched to e-cigarettes to quit smoking, then vaped the equivalent of a pack a day. Others had switched to vapes to quit but ended up both vaping and smoking again. And others picked up vaping without ever smoking. They want to quit, she said, but are not sure how.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in 2020 reported that 5.6 million  adults in the United States vaped. A little over 57% of people said they started using e-cigarettes to quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Another study in 2021 based on survey data found that about 60% of e-cigarette users wanted to quit their vaping habit. 

Vaping has been marketed as a way to help people kick their smoking habit. Research is inconclusive on this claim. But unlike cessation tools like nicotine gums or lozenges, using vapes for cessation is uncharted territory. Vapers lack guidance for how to use the devices to quit, and they have even less direction on what to do if they develop an addiction to the vapes themselves.
 

A new addiction?

Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery in New Jersey, said she has witnessed a higher level of nicotine addiction in the vapers with whom she has worked.

“When someone takes a hit from a vaping device, it doesn’t generate the burn it would from traditional tobacco,” Ms. Hanna said. “This causes people to take a deeper pull, and when they take a deeper pull, they establish a higher level of nicotine dependence over time.” 

A 2019 study of nearly 900 people published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that smokers who used vapes for cessation were twice as likely to have quit smoking cigarettes as those who used other nicotine replacement therapy. However, 80% of people who switched to vaping were using e-cigarettes a year after they tried to quit smoking.

Given that potential for addiction, Nancy Rigotti, MD, director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Tobacco Research and Treatment Center in Boston, said patients must use vapes “properly” for cessation. That means giving up smoking completely and quitting vapes as soon as patients are sure they will not go back to smoking tobacco.

“We are going to need to help these people to stop vaping,” said Dr. Rigotti, who is working with Achieve Life Sciences, a pharmaceutical company developing a prescription drug to treat nicotine addiction from vapes and cigarettes.

And many nicotine users who have tried vaping to quit smoking end up becoming dual users.

“It’s important to stress that health benefits [of switching to vaping] only occur if the switch to vapes is complete and permanent. So far, that appears difficult to do for most people who smoke, and in my anecdotal experience it has not worked,” said J. Taylor Hays, MD, the former medical director of Mayo Clinic’s Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minn.

Besides challenges in communicating the current evidence, no established method exists to help vapers quit, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society. 

“There are some experimental methods like using social interventions, counseling, and some educational campaigns,” Dr. Nargis said. “[Little] progress has been done in terms of clinical interventions.”

Unlike cessation products such as gum or a nicotine patch, which have clear recommendations for duration of use, similar guidelines don’t exist for vapes, in part because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet granted approval of vapes as cessation products.

Alex Clark, the CEO of Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping, said people could vape for longer and still benefit from making the switch from traditional cigarettes.

“The most important thing is that people start replacing cigarettes with a smoke-free product and continue until they’ve completely switched,” said Mr. Clark, whose group accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry. “Following switching, people are encouraged to continue with the product for as long as they feel necessary.”

But 2013 guidelines from the FDA advised makers of nicotine-replacement therapies – including gums, patches, and lozenges – to include labeling that advises users to complete treatment. According to the agency, if a person feels like they “need to use [the NRT product] for a longer period to keep from smoking, talk to your health care provider.”

Dr. Hays, who is now an emeritus professor at the Mayo Clinic, said he would not recommend patients try vaping as a cessation device given the availability of more proven techniques such as patches and gums. If a patient insists, vaping could be considered under the medical guidance of a cessation professional. He also advised people purchase products only from large tobacco companies that are likely to have “reasonable quality control.” Hundreds of vaping devices are on the market, and they are not all equivalent, he said.

But when an e-cigarette user wants to quit vaping, guidance might boil down to using traditional tobacco cessation methods like gums and lozenges because few tools exist to help people with a vaping-specific addiction.

The long-term health outcomes of vaping are also unclear, and decades will pass before scientists are able to make conclusions, according to Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, codirector of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products in Richmond.

“I don’t think anyone knows what the long-term effects of heated propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin and flavors intended as food ingredients are, especially when these compounds are inhaled hundreds of times a day, week after week, year after year,” Dr. Eissenberg said.

Dr. Rigotti reported that she receives no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. She is working with Achieve Life Sciences to develop a tool for vaping cessation. Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Hays, Dr. Nargis, and Ms. Sharma reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry.

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

This article is part of a series from Medscape on vaping.

Every day, Sonia Sharma, PA, meets people like Natalie H., who is trying to quit vaping.

Natalie, a member of the nicotine addiction support group at the University of California San Francisco’s Fontana Tobacco Treatment Center, switched from traditional cigarettes to vaping but found the electronic version just as addictive and eventually decided to quit using nicotine completely.

“I went from being an occasional cigarette smoker, a few a month, to a daily vaper,” said Natalie, who preferred not to give her last name to protect her privacy. “Vaping made my nicotine addiction worse, not better.”

“We have people tell us they vape before their feet hit the ground in the morning,” said Ms. Sharma, who coleads Natalie’s support group at UCSF. Ms. Sharma has met individuals who had smoked four to five cigarettes a day, switched to e-cigarettes to quit smoking, then vaped the equivalent of a pack a day. Others had switched to vapes to quit but ended up both vaping and smoking again. And others picked up vaping without ever smoking. They want to quit, she said, but are not sure how.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in 2020 reported that 5.6 million  adults in the United States vaped. A little over 57% of people said they started using e-cigarettes to quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Another study in 2021 based on survey data found that about 60% of e-cigarette users wanted to quit their vaping habit. 

Vaping has been marketed as a way to help people kick their smoking habit. Research is inconclusive on this claim. But unlike cessation tools like nicotine gums or lozenges, using vapes for cessation is uncharted territory. Vapers lack guidance for how to use the devices to quit, and they have even less direction on what to do if they develop an addiction to the vapes themselves.
 

A new addiction?

Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery in New Jersey, said she has witnessed a higher level of nicotine addiction in the vapers with whom she has worked.

“When someone takes a hit from a vaping device, it doesn’t generate the burn it would from traditional tobacco,” Ms. Hanna said. “This causes people to take a deeper pull, and when they take a deeper pull, they establish a higher level of nicotine dependence over time.” 

A 2019 study of nearly 900 people published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that smokers who used vapes for cessation were twice as likely to have quit smoking cigarettes as those who used other nicotine replacement therapy. However, 80% of people who switched to vaping were using e-cigarettes a year after they tried to quit smoking.

Given that potential for addiction, Nancy Rigotti, MD, director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Tobacco Research and Treatment Center in Boston, said patients must use vapes “properly” for cessation. That means giving up smoking completely and quitting vapes as soon as patients are sure they will not go back to smoking tobacco.

“We are going to need to help these people to stop vaping,” said Dr. Rigotti, who is working with Achieve Life Sciences, a pharmaceutical company developing a prescription drug to treat nicotine addiction from vapes and cigarettes.

And many nicotine users who have tried vaping to quit smoking end up becoming dual users.

“It’s important to stress that health benefits [of switching to vaping] only occur if the switch to vapes is complete and permanent. So far, that appears difficult to do for most people who smoke, and in my anecdotal experience it has not worked,” said J. Taylor Hays, MD, the former medical director of Mayo Clinic’s Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minn.

Besides challenges in communicating the current evidence, no established method exists to help vapers quit, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society. 

“There are some experimental methods like using social interventions, counseling, and some educational campaigns,” Dr. Nargis said. “[Little] progress has been done in terms of clinical interventions.”

Unlike cessation products such as gum or a nicotine patch, which have clear recommendations for duration of use, similar guidelines don’t exist for vapes, in part because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet granted approval of vapes as cessation products.

Alex Clark, the CEO of Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping, said people could vape for longer and still benefit from making the switch from traditional cigarettes.

“The most important thing is that people start replacing cigarettes with a smoke-free product and continue until they’ve completely switched,” said Mr. Clark, whose group accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry. “Following switching, people are encouraged to continue with the product for as long as they feel necessary.”

But 2013 guidelines from the FDA advised makers of nicotine-replacement therapies – including gums, patches, and lozenges – to include labeling that advises users to complete treatment. According to the agency, if a person feels like they “need to use [the NRT product] for a longer period to keep from smoking, talk to your health care provider.”

Dr. Hays, who is now an emeritus professor at the Mayo Clinic, said he would not recommend patients try vaping as a cessation device given the availability of more proven techniques such as patches and gums. If a patient insists, vaping could be considered under the medical guidance of a cessation professional. He also advised people purchase products only from large tobacco companies that are likely to have “reasonable quality control.” Hundreds of vaping devices are on the market, and they are not all equivalent, he said.

But when an e-cigarette user wants to quit vaping, guidance might boil down to using traditional tobacco cessation methods like gums and lozenges because few tools exist to help people with a vaping-specific addiction.

The long-term health outcomes of vaping are also unclear, and decades will pass before scientists are able to make conclusions, according to Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, codirector of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products in Richmond.

“I don’t think anyone knows what the long-term effects of heated propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin and flavors intended as food ingredients are, especially when these compounds are inhaled hundreds of times a day, week after week, year after year,” Dr. Eissenberg said.

Dr. Rigotti reported that she receives no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. She is working with Achieve Life Sciences to develop a tool for vaping cessation. Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Hays, Dr. Nargis, and Ms. Sharma reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry.

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

This article is part of a series from Medscape on vaping.

Every day, Sonia Sharma, PA, meets people like Natalie H., who is trying to quit vaping.

Natalie, a member of the nicotine addiction support group at the University of California San Francisco’s Fontana Tobacco Treatment Center, switched from traditional cigarettes to vaping but found the electronic version just as addictive and eventually decided to quit using nicotine completely.

“I went from being an occasional cigarette smoker, a few a month, to a daily vaper,” said Natalie, who preferred not to give her last name to protect her privacy. “Vaping made my nicotine addiction worse, not better.”

“We have people tell us they vape before their feet hit the ground in the morning,” said Ms. Sharma, who coleads Natalie’s support group at UCSF. Ms. Sharma has met individuals who had smoked four to five cigarettes a day, switched to e-cigarettes to quit smoking, then vaped the equivalent of a pack a day. Others had switched to vapes to quit but ended up both vaping and smoking again. And others picked up vaping without ever smoking. They want to quit, she said, but are not sure how.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in 2020 reported that 5.6 million  adults in the United States vaped. A little over 57% of people said they started using e-cigarettes to quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Another study in 2021 based on survey data found that about 60% of e-cigarette users wanted to quit their vaping habit. 

Vaping has been marketed as a way to help people kick their smoking habit. Research is inconclusive on this claim. But unlike cessation tools like nicotine gums or lozenges, using vapes for cessation is uncharted territory. Vapers lack guidance for how to use the devices to quit, and they have even less direction on what to do if they develop an addiction to the vapes themselves.
 

A new addiction?

Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery in New Jersey, said she has witnessed a higher level of nicotine addiction in the vapers with whom she has worked.

“When someone takes a hit from a vaping device, it doesn’t generate the burn it would from traditional tobacco,” Ms. Hanna said. “This causes people to take a deeper pull, and when they take a deeper pull, they establish a higher level of nicotine dependence over time.” 

A 2019 study of nearly 900 people published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that smokers who used vapes for cessation were twice as likely to have quit smoking cigarettes as those who used other nicotine replacement therapy. However, 80% of people who switched to vaping were using e-cigarettes a year after they tried to quit smoking.

Given that potential for addiction, Nancy Rigotti, MD, director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Tobacco Research and Treatment Center in Boston, said patients must use vapes “properly” for cessation. That means giving up smoking completely and quitting vapes as soon as patients are sure they will not go back to smoking tobacco.

“We are going to need to help these people to stop vaping,” said Dr. Rigotti, who is working with Achieve Life Sciences, a pharmaceutical company developing a prescription drug to treat nicotine addiction from vapes and cigarettes.

And many nicotine users who have tried vaping to quit smoking end up becoming dual users.

“It’s important to stress that health benefits [of switching to vaping] only occur if the switch to vapes is complete and permanent. So far, that appears difficult to do for most people who smoke, and in my anecdotal experience it has not worked,” said J. Taylor Hays, MD, the former medical director of Mayo Clinic’s Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minn.

Besides challenges in communicating the current evidence, no established method exists to help vapers quit, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society. 

“There are some experimental methods like using social interventions, counseling, and some educational campaigns,” Dr. Nargis said. “[Little] progress has been done in terms of clinical interventions.”

Unlike cessation products such as gum or a nicotine patch, which have clear recommendations for duration of use, similar guidelines don’t exist for vapes, in part because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet granted approval of vapes as cessation products.

Alex Clark, the CEO of Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping, said people could vape for longer and still benefit from making the switch from traditional cigarettes.

“The most important thing is that people start replacing cigarettes with a smoke-free product and continue until they’ve completely switched,” said Mr. Clark, whose group accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry. “Following switching, people are encouraged to continue with the product for as long as they feel necessary.”

But 2013 guidelines from the FDA advised makers of nicotine-replacement therapies – including gums, patches, and lozenges – to include labeling that advises users to complete treatment. According to the agency, if a person feels like they “need to use [the NRT product] for a longer period to keep from smoking, talk to your health care provider.”

Dr. Hays, who is now an emeritus professor at the Mayo Clinic, said he would not recommend patients try vaping as a cessation device given the availability of more proven techniques such as patches and gums. If a patient insists, vaping could be considered under the medical guidance of a cessation professional. He also advised people purchase products only from large tobacco companies that are likely to have “reasonable quality control.” Hundreds of vaping devices are on the market, and they are not all equivalent, he said.

But when an e-cigarette user wants to quit vaping, guidance might boil down to using traditional tobacco cessation methods like gums and lozenges because few tools exist to help people with a vaping-specific addiction.

The long-term health outcomes of vaping are also unclear, and decades will pass before scientists are able to make conclusions, according to Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, codirector of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products in Richmond.

“I don’t think anyone knows what the long-term effects of heated propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin and flavors intended as food ingredients are, especially when these compounds are inhaled hundreds of times a day, week after week, year after year,” Dr. Eissenberg said.

Dr. Rigotti reported that she receives no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. She is working with Achieve Life Sciences to develop a tool for vaping cessation. Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Hays, Dr. Nargis, and Ms. Sharma reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

Relationships between 22 unique comorbidities and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) were assessed by a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) approach in a retrospective study. Three of the comorbidities that were examined appeared causally associated with an increased risk of IPF.

Researchers used summary statistics of large-scale genomewide association studies (GWAS) obtained from the IPF Genetics Consortium. For replication, they used data from the Global Biobank Meta-Analysis Initiative.

Pulmonary or extrapulmonary illnesses are regularly observed to be comorbidities associated with IPF. Although randomized control trials can provide strong deductive evidence of causal relationships between diseases, they are also often subject to inherent practical and ethical limitations. MR is an alternative approach that exploits genetic variants of genes with known function as a means to infer a causal effect of a modifiable exposure on disease and minimizes possible confounding issues from unrelated environmental factors and reverse causation. Bidirectional MR extends the exposure-outcome association analysis of MR to both directions, producing a higher level of evidence for causality, Jiahao Zhu, of the Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.
 

Study details

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reported on direction and causal associations between IPF and comorbidities, as determined by bidirectional MR analysis of GWAS summary statistics from five studies included in the IPF Genetics Consortium (4,125 patients and 20,464 control participants). For replication, they extracted IPF GWAS summary statistics from the nine biobanks from the GBMI (6,257 patients and 947,616 control participants). All individuals were of European ancestry.

The 22 comorbidities examined for a relationship to IPF were identified through a combination of a PubMed database literature search limited to English-language articles concerning IPF as either an exposure or an outcome and having an available full GWAS summary statistic. The number of patients in these studies ranged from a minimum of 3,203 for osteoporosis to a maximum of 246,363 for major depressive disorder.

To estimate causal relationships, single-nucleotide polymorphism selection for IPF and each comorbidity genetic instrument were based on a genomewide significance value (P < 5x10^–8) and were clumped by linkage disequilibrium (r² < 0.001 within a 10,000 kB clumping distance). Evidence from analysis associating each comorbidity with IPF was categorized as either convincing, suggestive, or weak. Follow-up studies examined the causal effects of measured lung and thyroid variables on IPF and IPF effects on blood pressure variables.
 

Convincing evidence

The bidirectional MR and follow-up analysis revealed “convincing evidence” of causal relationships between IPF and 2 of the evaluated 22 comorbidities. A higher risk of IPF was associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Importantly, a multivariable MR analysis conditioning for smoking continued to show the causal linkage between GERD and a higher risk of IPF. In contrast, the genetic liability of COPD appeared to confer a protective role, as indicated by an associated decrease in risk for IPF. The researchers suggest that this negative relationship may be caused by their distinct genetic architecture.

Suggestive evidence

“Suggestive evidence” of underlying relationships between IPF and lung cancer or blood pressure phenotype comorbidities was also found with this study. The MR results give support to existing evidence that IPF has a causal effect for a higher lung cancer risk. In contrast, IPF appeared to have a protective effect on hypertension and BP phenotypes. This contrasted with VTE: On the basis of bidirectional MR analysis, the researchers suggest that VTE was more likely to be a cause rather than a consequence of IPF. Evidence suggestive that genetic liability to hypothyroidism could lead to IPF was also found (International IPF Genetics Consortium, P < .040; MR PRESSO method; and GBMI, P < .002; IVW method).

Limitations

The primary strengths of the study was the ability of MR design to enhance causal inference, particularly when large cohorts for perspective investigations would be inherently difficult to obtain. Several noted limitations include the fact that causal estimates may not be well matched to observational or interventional studies and there was a low number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms available as genetic instruments for some diseases. In addition, there was a potential bias because of some sample overlap among the utilized databases, and it is unknown whether the results are applicable to ethnicities other than those of European ancestry.

Conclusion

Overall, this study showed that a bidirectional MR analysis approach could leverage genetic information from large databases to reveal causative associations between IPF and several different comorbidities. This included an apparent causal relationship of GERD, venous thromboembolism, and hypothyroidism with IPF, according to the researchers. These provide the basis to obtain “a deeper understanding of the pathways underlying these diverse associations” that may have valuable “implications for enhanced prevention and treatment strategies for comorbidities.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Relationships between 22 unique comorbidities and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) were assessed by a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) approach in a retrospective study. Three of the comorbidities that were examined appeared causally associated with an increased risk of IPF.

Researchers used summary statistics of large-scale genomewide association studies (GWAS) obtained from the IPF Genetics Consortium. For replication, they used data from the Global Biobank Meta-Analysis Initiative.

Pulmonary or extrapulmonary illnesses are regularly observed to be comorbidities associated with IPF. Although randomized control trials can provide strong deductive evidence of causal relationships between diseases, they are also often subject to inherent practical and ethical limitations. MR is an alternative approach that exploits genetic variants of genes with known function as a means to infer a causal effect of a modifiable exposure on disease and minimizes possible confounding issues from unrelated environmental factors and reverse causation. Bidirectional MR extends the exposure-outcome association analysis of MR to both directions, producing a higher level of evidence for causality, Jiahao Zhu, of the Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.
 

Study details

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reported on direction and causal associations between IPF and comorbidities, as determined by bidirectional MR analysis of GWAS summary statistics from five studies included in the IPF Genetics Consortium (4,125 patients and 20,464 control participants). For replication, they extracted IPF GWAS summary statistics from the nine biobanks from the GBMI (6,257 patients and 947,616 control participants). All individuals were of European ancestry.

The 22 comorbidities examined for a relationship to IPF were identified through a combination of a PubMed database literature search limited to English-language articles concerning IPF as either an exposure or an outcome and having an available full GWAS summary statistic. The number of patients in these studies ranged from a minimum of 3,203 for osteoporosis to a maximum of 246,363 for major depressive disorder.

To estimate causal relationships, single-nucleotide polymorphism selection for IPF and each comorbidity genetic instrument were based on a genomewide significance value (P < 5x10^–8) and were clumped by linkage disequilibrium (r² < 0.001 within a 10,000 kB clumping distance). Evidence from analysis associating each comorbidity with IPF was categorized as either convincing, suggestive, or weak. Follow-up studies examined the causal effects of measured lung and thyroid variables on IPF and IPF effects on blood pressure variables.
 

Convincing evidence

The bidirectional MR and follow-up analysis revealed “convincing evidence” of causal relationships between IPF and 2 of the evaluated 22 comorbidities. A higher risk of IPF was associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Importantly, a multivariable MR analysis conditioning for smoking continued to show the causal linkage between GERD and a higher risk of IPF. In contrast, the genetic liability of COPD appeared to confer a protective role, as indicated by an associated decrease in risk for IPF. The researchers suggest that this negative relationship may be caused by their distinct genetic architecture.

Suggestive evidence

“Suggestive evidence” of underlying relationships between IPF and lung cancer or blood pressure phenotype comorbidities was also found with this study. The MR results give support to existing evidence that IPF has a causal effect for a higher lung cancer risk. In contrast, IPF appeared to have a protective effect on hypertension and BP phenotypes. This contrasted with VTE: On the basis of bidirectional MR analysis, the researchers suggest that VTE was more likely to be a cause rather than a consequence of IPF. Evidence suggestive that genetic liability to hypothyroidism could lead to IPF was also found (International IPF Genetics Consortium, P < .040; MR PRESSO method; and GBMI, P < .002; IVW method).

Limitations

The primary strengths of the study was the ability of MR design to enhance causal inference, particularly when large cohorts for perspective investigations would be inherently difficult to obtain. Several noted limitations include the fact that causal estimates may not be well matched to observational or interventional studies and there was a low number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms available as genetic instruments for some diseases. In addition, there was a potential bias because of some sample overlap among the utilized databases, and it is unknown whether the results are applicable to ethnicities other than those of European ancestry.

Conclusion

Overall, this study showed that a bidirectional MR analysis approach could leverage genetic information from large databases to reveal causative associations between IPF and several different comorbidities. This included an apparent causal relationship of GERD, venous thromboembolism, and hypothyroidism with IPF, according to the researchers. These provide the basis to obtain “a deeper understanding of the pathways underlying these diverse associations” that may have valuable “implications for enhanced prevention and treatment strategies for comorbidities.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Relationships between 22 unique comorbidities and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) were assessed by a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) approach in a retrospective study. Three of the comorbidities that were examined appeared causally associated with an increased risk of IPF.

Researchers used summary statistics of large-scale genomewide association studies (GWAS) obtained from the IPF Genetics Consortium. For replication, they used data from the Global Biobank Meta-Analysis Initiative.

Pulmonary or extrapulmonary illnesses are regularly observed to be comorbidities associated with IPF. Although randomized control trials can provide strong deductive evidence of causal relationships between diseases, they are also often subject to inherent practical and ethical limitations. MR is an alternative approach that exploits genetic variants of genes with known function as a means to infer a causal effect of a modifiable exposure on disease and minimizes possible confounding issues from unrelated environmental factors and reverse causation. Bidirectional MR extends the exposure-outcome association analysis of MR to both directions, producing a higher level of evidence for causality, Jiahao Zhu, of the Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.
 

Study details

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reported on direction and causal associations between IPF and comorbidities, as determined by bidirectional MR analysis of GWAS summary statistics from five studies included in the IPF Genetics Consortium (4,125 patients and 20,464 control participants). For replication, they extracted IPF GWAS summary statistics from the nine biobanks from the GBMI (6,257 patients and 947,616 control participants). All individuals were of European ancestry.

The 22 comorbidities examined for a relationship to IPF were identified through a combination of a PubMed database literature search limited to English-language articles concerning IPF as either an exposure or an outcome and having an available full GWAS summary statistic. The number of patients in these studies ranged from a minimum of 3,203 for osteoporosis to a maximum of 246,363 for major depressive disorder.

To estimate causal relationships, single-nucleotide polymorphism selection for IPF and each comorbidity genetic instrument were based on a genomewide significance value (P < 5x10^–8) and were clumped by linkage disequilibrium (r² < 0.001 within a 10,000 kB clumping distance). Evidence from analysis associating each comorbidity with IPF was categorized as either convincing, suggestive, or weak. Follow-up studies examined the causal effects of measured lung and thyroid variables on IPF and IPF effects on blood pressure variables.
 

Convincing evidence

The bidirectional MR and follow-up analysis revealed “convincing evidence” of causal relationships between IPF and 2 of the evaluated 22 comorbidities. A higher risk of IPF was associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Importantly, a multivariable MR analysis conditioning for smoking continued to show the causal linkage between GERD and a higher risk of IPF. In contrast, the genetic liability of COPD appeared to confer a protective role, as indicated by an associated decrease in risk for IPF. The researchers suggest that this negative relationship may be caused by their distinct genetic architecture.

Suggestive evidence

“Suggestive evidence” of underlying relationships between IPF and lung cancer or blood pressure phenotype comorbidities was also found with this study. The MR results give support to existing evidence that IPF has a causal effect for a higher lung cancer risk. In contrast, IPF appeared to have a protective effect on hypertension and BP phenotypes. This contrasted with VTE: On the basis of bidirectional MR analysis, the researchers suggest that VTE was more likely to be a cause rather than a consequence of IPF. Evidence suggestive that genetic liability to hypothyroidism could lead to IPF was also found (International IPF Genetics Consortium, P < .040; MR PRESSO method; and GBMI, P < .002; IVW method).

Limitations

The primary strengths of the study was the ability of MR design to enhance causal inference, particularly when large cohorts for perspective investigations would be inherently difficult to obtain. Several noted limitations include the fact that causal estimates may not be well matched to observational or interventional studies and there was a low number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms available as genetic instruments for some diseases. In addition, there was a potential bias because of some sample overlap among the utilized databases, and it is unknown whether the results are applicable to ethnicities other than those of European ancestry.

Conclusion

Overall, this study showed that a bidirectional MR analysis approach could leverage genetic information from large databases to reveal causative associations between IPF and several different comorbidities. This included an apparent causal relationship of GERD, venous thromboembolism, and hypothyroidism with IPF, according to the researchers. These provide the basis to obtain “a deeper understanding of the pathways underlying these diverse associations” that may have valuable “implications for enhanced prevention and treatment strategies for comorbidities.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) were 69% less likely to develop interstitial lung disease (ILD), compared with those treated with adalimumab (Humira), according to a new retrospective study.

About 10% of RA patients develop ILD, but data on how different biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) may affect the risk of developing ILD is lacking, the authors wrote. Identifying treatments that may have protective effects could be useful when prescribing treatments for patients with RA who are at higher risk for ILD, first author Matthew C. Baker, MD, clinical chief in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

In the analysis, published in JAMA Network Open researchers used the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to identify claims data for patients with RA who were taking b/tsDMARDs from December 2003 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they had a preexisting diagnosis of ILD or if they had less than 1 year of continuous enrollment in the data set.

The researchers identified 28,559 patients with RA who were treated with adalimumab (13,326), abatacept (Orencia; 5,676), rituximab (Rituxan; 5,444), tocilizumab (Actemra; 2,548), and tofacitinib (1,565). More than three-fourths of patients were female (78%), and their average age was 55.6 years old. During the study period, 276 developed ILD. An adjusted model showed a 69% lower incidence of ILD in patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with those treated with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.78; P = .009). An additional sensitivity analysis also showed a similar reduction in ILD risk in those taking tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab (aHR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; P < .001). There was no significant difference in risk of developing ILD in the abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab groups, compared with the adalimumab group.

“Patients who generally looked similar with RA, but were given different treatments, had different risks of developing ILD,” Dr. Baker said. “Based on what we found, most of the biologic therapies had similar rates of developing ILD, but the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib had a reduced risk.” Additional research is necessary to see if tofacitinib shows the same benefit in prospective studies, he said.

“Even though this wasn’t a clinical trial, it suggested that one of the medications that we use to treat RA could potentially prevent the development of ILD,” Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, codirector of the Connective Tissue Disease-Related Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. She was not involved with the study.

With retrospective studies, it is difficult to account for all confounding factors, even with adjusted models, she said. For example, the authors did not have data on patients’ history of smoking, a known risk factor for ILD that could have affected which treatment was selected, they acknowledged. The tofacitinib group was also smaller than other treatment groups, which “may have contributed to a small number of events,” the authors wrote. “However, the follow-up time was similar across all groups, and we used Cox proportional hazard models to investigate the association between time-to-event and use of treatment while controlling for the other baseline characteristics.”

Both Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann agreed that future research could also investigate whether tofacitinib prevents the progression of ILD in patients with RA who already have the lung condition. “That’s never been looked at before,” Dr. Volkmann said.

Dr. Baker and a coauthor received support for this work from grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) were 69% less likely to develop interstitial lung disease (ILD), compared with those treated with adalimumab (Humira), according to a new retrospective study.

About 10% of RA patients develop ILD, but data on how different biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) may affect the risk of developing ILD is lacking, the authors wrote. Identifying treatments that may have protective effects could be useful when prescribing treatments for patients with RA who are at higher risk for ILD, first author Matthew C. Baker, MD, clinical chief in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

In the analysis, published in JAMA Network Open researchers used the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to identify claims data for patients with RA who were taking b/tsDMARDs from December 2003 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they had a preexisting diagnosis of ILD or if they had less than 1 year of continuous enrollment in the data set.

The researchers identified 28,559 patients with RA who were treated with adalimumab (13,326), abatacept (Orencia; 5,676), rituximab (Rituxan; 5,444), tocilizumab (Actemra; 2,548), and tofacitinib (1,565). More than three-fourths of patients were female (78%), and their average age was 55.6 years old. During the study period, 276 developed ILD. An adjusted model showed a 69% lower incidence of ILD in patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with those treated with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.78; P = .009). An additional sensitivity analysis also showed a similar reduction in ILD risk in those taking tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab (aHR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; P < .001). There was no significant difference in risk of developing ILD in the abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab groups, compared with the adalimumab group.

“Patients who generally looked similar with RA, but were given different treatments, had different risks of developing ILD,” Dr. Baker said. “Based on what we found, most of the biologic therapies had similar rates of developing ILD, but the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib had a reduced risk.” Additional research is necessary to see if tofacitinib shows the same benefit in prospective studies, he said.

“Even though this wasn’t a clinical trial, it suggested that one of the medications that we use to treat RA could potentially prevent the development of ILD,” Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, codirector of the Connective Tissue Disease-Related Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. She was not involved with the study.

With retrospective studies, it is difficult to account for all confounding factors, even with adjusted models, she said. For example, the authors did not have data on patients’ history of smoking, a known risk factor for ILD that could have affected which treatment was selected, they acknowledged. The tofacitinib group was also smaller than other treatment groups, which “may have contributed to a small number of events,” the authors wrote. “However, the follow-up time was similar across all groups, and we used Cox proportional hazard models to investigate the association between time-to-event and use of treatment while controlling for the other baseline characteristics.”

Both Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann agreed that future research could also investigate whether tofacitinib prevents the progression of ILD in patients with RA who already have the lung condition. “That’s never been looked at before,” Dr. Volkmann said.

Dr. Baker and a coauthor received support for this work from grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) were 69% less likely to develop interstitial lung disease (ILD), compared with those treated with adalimumab (Humira), according to a new retrospective study.

About 10% of RA patients develop ILD, but data on how different biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) may affect the risk of developing ILD is lacking, the authors wrote. Identifying treatments that may have protective effects could be useful when prescribing treatments for patients with RA who are at higher risk for ILD, first author Matthew C. Baker, MD, clinical chief in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

In the analysis, published in JAMA Network Open researchers used the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to identify claims data for patients with RA who were taking b/tsDMARDs from December 2003 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they had a preexisting diagnosis of ILD or if they had less than 1 year of continuous enrollment in the data set.

The researchers identified 28,559 patients with RA who were treated with adalimumab (13,326), abatacept (Orencia; 5,676), rituximab (Rituxan; 5,444), tocilizumab (Actemra; 2,548), and tofacitinib (1,565). More than three-fourths of patients were female (78%), and their average age was 55.6 years old. During the study period, 276 developed ILD. An adjusted model showed a 69% lower incidence of ILD in patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with those treated with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.78; P = .009). An additional sensitivity analysis also showed a similar reduction in ILD risk in those taking tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab (aHR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; P < .001). There was no significant difference in risk of developing ILD in the abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab groups, compared with the adalimumab group.

“Patients who generally looked similar with RA, but were given different treatments, had different risks of developing ILD,” Dr. Baker said. “Based on what we found, most of the biologic therapies had similar rates of developing ILD, but the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib had a reduced risk.” Additional research is necessary to see if tofacitinib shows the same benefit in prospective studies, he said.

“Even though this wasn’t a clinical trial, it suggested that one of the medications that we use to treat RA could potentially prevent the development of ILD,” Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, codirector of the Connective Tissue Disease-Related Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. She was not involved with the study.

With retrospective studies, it is difficult to account for all confounding factors, even with adjusted models, she said. For example, the authors did not have data on patients’ history of smoking, a known risk factor for ILD that could have affected which treatment was selected, they acknowledged. The tofacitinib group was also smaller than other treatment groups, which “may have contributed to a small number of events,” the authors wrote. “However, the follow-up time was similar across all groups, and we used Cox proportional hazard models to investigate the association between time-to-event and use of treatment while controlling for the other baseline characteristics.”

Both Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann agreed that future research could also investigate whether tofacitinib prevents the progression of ILD in patients with RA who already have the lung condition. “That’s never been looked at before,” Dr. Volkmann said.

Dr. Baker and a coauthor received support for this work from grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baker and Dr. Volkmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.

The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.

The children’s median predicted FEV₁ was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.

Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).

Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.

Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.

However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.

An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.

The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.

The children’s median predicted FEV₁ was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.

Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).

Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.

Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.

However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.

An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.

The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.

The children’s median predicted FEV₁ was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.

Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).

Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.

Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.

However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.

Independent of pulmonary function, improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life after lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves (EBV) are associated with a significant survival benefit, according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.

In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.

Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.

BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.

Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.

Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).

Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.

“Especially in patients with a low FEV₁ (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted

The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.

This article was updated 3/30/23.

Independent of pulmonary function, improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life after lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves (EBV) are associated with a significant survival benefit, according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.

In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.

Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.

BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.

Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.

Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).

Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.

“Especially in patients with a low FEV₁ (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted

The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.

This article was updated 3/30/23.

Independent of pulmonary function, improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life after lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves (EBV) are associated with a significant survival benefit, according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.

In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.

Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.

BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.

Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.

Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).

Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.

“Especially in patients with a low FEV₁ (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted

The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.

This article was updated 3/30/23.