Pulmonology

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The newest subvariant of Omicron, XBB.1.5, is so transmissible that everybody is at risk of catching it, even if they’ve already been infected and are fully vaccinated, a health expert told USA Today.

“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.” 

XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.

It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.” 

Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.

“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted. 

He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.

The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.

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

The newest subvariant of Omicron, XBB.1.5, is so transmissible that everybody is at risk of catching it, even if they’ve already been infected and are fully vaccinated, a health expert told USA Today.

“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.” 

XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.

It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.” 

Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.

“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted. 

He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.

The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.

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

The newest subvariant of Omicron, XBB.1.5, is so transmissible that everybody is at risk of catching it, even if they’ve already been infected and are fully vaccinated, a health expert told USA Today.

“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.” 

XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.

It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.” 

Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.

“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted. 

He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.

The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Clinical guidelines recommend use of exacerbation history in choosing therapies to predict the risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, but an analysis of data from three different clinical studies has found that exacerbation history alone is not the most accurate risk-prediction tool – and that it may even cause harm in some situations.

“Our results present a cautionary tale for the potential risk of harm to patients when naively applying risk stratification algorithms across different clinical settings,” lead author Joseph Khoa Ho, PharmD, a master’s candidate in pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

“We show that risk-prediction models have better accuracy than exacerbation history alone for predicting the future risk of COPD exacerbations,” he said. “However, the prediction models required re-evaluation and setting-specific recalibration in order to yield higher clinical utility.”

The study, known as IMPACT, analyzed three trials that enrolled 4,107 patients at varying levels of moderate or severe exacerbation risks: the placebo arm of the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT; N = 2,421); the Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT; N = 595); and the placebo arm of the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health trial (TORCH; N = 1,091). The exacerbation risks were low, medium, and high in the three respective trials.

The study, published online in the journal CHEST, compared the performance of three risk-stratification algorithms: exacerbation history; the model that Loes C.M. Bertens, PhD, and colleagues in the Netherlands developed in 2013; and the latest version of the Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool, known as ACCEPT.
 

Results of the analysis

The study used area under the curve (AUC), a method of evaluating effectiveness or efficiency, to compare performance of the prediction algorithms. ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history and the Bertens algorithm in all the LOTT (medium risk) and TORCH (high risk) samples, both of which were statistically significant. In SUMMIT (low risk), Bertens and ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history, which was statistically significant.

The AUC for exacerbation history alone in predicting future exacerbations in SUMMIT, LOTT, and TORCH was 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.59-0.67), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.68), respectively. Bertens had a higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in SUMMIT (increase of 0.10, P < .001) and TORCH (increase of 0.05, P < .001), but not in LOTT (increase of 0.01, P = .84).

ACCEPT had higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in all study samples, by 0.08 (P < .001), 0.07 (P = .001) and 0.10 (P < .001), respectively. Compared with Bertens, ACCEPT had higher AUC by 0.06 (P = .001) in LOTT and 0.05 (P < .001) in TORCH, whereas the AUCs were not different in SUMMIT (change of –0.02, P = .16).
 

Study rationale

Senior author Mohsen Sadatsafavi, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, told this news organization that this study was inspired by a study in cardiology earlier in 2022 that found that the performance of the multitude of risk-prediction tools used to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk can vary widely if they’re not calibrated for new patient populations.

“The main finding was that exacerbation history alone can be harmful even if it is applied at different risk levels,” Dr. Sadatsafavi said of the IMPACT study. “No algorithm could be universally applicable, but exacerbation history has a very high chance of being worse than not doing any risk stratification at all and simply giving medication to all patients.”

Exacerbation history was considered harmful because it generated a lower net benefit than the either Bertens or ACCEPT, the IMPACT study found.

The benefit of the two risk-prediction tools is that they can be recalibrated, Dr. Sadatsafavi said. “You don’t have that luxury with exacerbation history, because it’s just a fixed positive or negative history,” he said. “We need to be quite cognizant of the difference in lung attacks in different populations and the fact that exacerbation history has very different performance in different groups and might be harmful when applied in certain populations. We suggest the use of the risk-stratification tools as a better proper statistical model.”
 

Expert comment

“As the authors point out, current guidelines for COPD management recommend preventive exacerbation therapy considering the patient’s exacerbation history,” Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Worcester, said via email. “However, this strategy has demonstrated harm in some situations.”

She noted that the multivariable prediction models were more accurate than exacerbation history alone for predicting 12-month risk of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations but that no algorithm was superior in clinical utility across all samples. 

“The authors conclude that the highest accuracy of a risk prediction model can be achieved when the model is recalibrated based on the baseline exacerbation risk of the study population in question,” Dr. Farmer added. 

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Ho, Dr. Sadatsafavi, and Dr. Farmer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical guidelines recommend use of exacerbation history in choosing therapies to predict the risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, but an analysis of data from three different clinical studies has found that exacerbation history alone is not the most accurate risk-prediction tool – and that it may even cause harm in some situations.

“Our results present a cautionary tale for the potential risk of harm to patients when naively applying risk stratification algorithms across different clinical settings,” lead author Joseph Khoa Ho, PharmD, a master’s candidate in pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

“We show that risk-prediction models have better accuracy than exacerbation history alone for predicting the future risk of COPD exacerbations,” he said. “However, the prediction models required re-evaluation and setting-specific recalibration in order to yield higher clinical utility.”

The study, known as IMPACT, analyzed three trials that enrolled 4,107 patients at varying levels of moderate or severe exacerbation risks: the placebo arm of the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT; N = 2,421); the Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT; N = 595); and the placebo arm of the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health trial (TORCH; N = 1,091). The exacerbation risks were low, medium, and high in the three respective trials.

The study, published online in the journal CHEST, compared the performance of three risk-stratification algorithms: exacerbation history; the model that Loes C.M. Bertens, PhD, and colleagues in the Netherlands developed in 2013; and the latest version of the Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool, known as ACCEPT.
 

Results of the analysis

The study used area under the curve (AUC), a method of evaluating effectiveness or efficiency, to compare performance of the prediction algorithms. ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history and the Bertens algorithm in all the LOTT (medium risk) and TORCH (high risk) samples, both of which were statistically significant. In SUMMIT (low risk), Bertens and ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history, which was statistically significant.

The AUC for exacerbation history alone in predicting future exacerbations in SUMMIT, LOTT, and TORCH was 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.59-0.67), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.68), respectively. Bertens had a higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in SUMMIT (increase of 0.10, P < .001) and TORCH (increase of 0.05, P < .001), but not in LOTT (increase of 0.01, P = .84).

ACCEPT had higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in all study samples, by 0.08 (P < .001), 0.07 (P = .001) and 0.10 (P < .001), respectively. Compared with Bertens, ACCEPT had higher AUC by 0.06 (P = .001) in LOTT and 0.05 (P < .001) in TORCH, whereas the AUCs were not different in SUMMIT (change of –0.02, P = .16).
 

Study rationale

Senior author Mohsen Sadatsafavi, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, told this news organization that this study was inspired by a study in cardiology earlier in 2022 that found that the performance of the multitude of risk-prediction tools used to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk can vary widely if they’re not calibrated for new patient populations.

“The main finding was that exacerbation history alone can be harmful even if it is applied at different risk levels,” Dr. Sadatsafavi said of the IMPACT study. “No algorithm could be universally applicable, but exacerbation history has a very high chance of being worse than not doing any risk stratification at all and simply giving medication to all patients.”

Exacerbation history was considered harmful because it generated a lower net benefit than the either Bertens or ACCEPT, the IMPACT study found.

The benefit of the two risk-prediction tools is that they can be recalibrated, Dr. Sadatsafavi said. “You don’t have that luxury with exacerbation history, because it’s just a fixed positive or negative history,” he said. “We need to be quite cognizant of the difference in lung attacks in different populations and the fact that exacerbation history has very different performance in different groups and might be harmful when applied in certain populations. We suggest the use of the risk-stratification tools as a better proper statistical model.”
 

Expert comment

“As the authors point out, current guidelines for COPD management recommend preventive exacerbation therapy considering the patient’s exacerbation history,” Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Worcester, said via email. “However, this strategy has demonstrated harm in some situations.”

She noted that the multivariable prediction models were more accurate than exacerbation history alone for predicting 12-month risk of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations but that no algorithm was superior in clinical utility across all samples. 

“The authors conclude that the highest accuracy of a risk prediction model can be achieved when the model is recalibrated based on the baseline exacerbation risk of the study population in question,” Dr. Farmer added. 

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Ho, Dr. Sadatsafavi, and Dr. Farmer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical guidelines recommend use of exacerbation history in choosing therapies to predict the risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, but an analysis of data from three different clinical studies has found that exacerbation history alone is not the most accurate risk-prediction tool – and that it may even cause harm in some situations.

“Our results present a cautionary tale for the potential risk of harm to patients when naively applying risk stratification algorithms across different clinical settings,” lead author Joseph Khoa Ho, PharmD, a master’s candidate in pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

“We show that risk-prediction models have better accuracy than exacerbation history alone for predicting the future risk of COPD exacerbations,” he said. “However, the prediction models required re-evaluation and setting-specific recalibration in order to yield higher clinical utility.”

The study, known as IMPACT, analyzed three trials that enrolled 4,107 patients at varying levels of moderate or severe exacerbation risks: the placebo arm of the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT; N = 2,421); the Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT; N = 595); and the placebo arm of the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health trial (TORCH; N = 1,091). The exacerbation risks were low, medium, and high in the three respective trials.

The study, published online in the journal CHEST, compared the performance of three risk-stratification algorithms: exacerbation history; the model that Loes C.M. Bertens, PhD, and colleagues in the Netherlands developed in 2013; and the latest version of the Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool, known as ACCEPT.
 

Results of the analysis

The study used area under the curve (AUC), a method of evaluating effectiveness or efficiency, to compare performance of the prediction algorithms. ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history and the Bertens algorithm in all the LOTT (medium risk) and TORCH (high risk) samples, both of which were statistically significant. In SUMMIT (low risk), Bertens and ACCEPT outperformed exacerbation history, which was statistically significant.

The AUC for exacerbation history alone in predicting future exacerbations in SUMMIT, LOTT, and TORCH was 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.59-0.67), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.68), respectively. Bertens had a higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in SUMMIT (increase of 0.10, P < .001) and TORCH (increase of 0.05, P < .001), but not in LOTT (increase of 0.01, P = .84).

ACCEPT had higher AUC, compared with exacerbation history alone in all study samples, by 0.08 (P < .001), 0.07 (P = .001) and 0.10 (P < .001), respectively. Compared with Bertens, ACCEPT had higher AUC by 0.06 (P = .001) in LOTT and 0.05 (P < .001) in TORCH, whereas the AUCs were not different in SUMMIT (change of –0.02, P = .16).
 

Study rationale

Senior author Mohsen Sadatsafavi, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia, told this news organization that this study was inspired by a study in cardiology earlier in 2022 that found that the performance of the multitude of risk-prediction tools used to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk can vary widely if they’re not calibrated for new patient populations.

“The main finding was that exacerbation history alone can be harmful even if it is applied at different risk levels,” Dr. Sadatsafavi said of the IMPACT study. “No algorithm could be universally applicable, but exacerbation history has a very high chance of being worse than not doing any risk stratification at all and simply giving medication to all patients.”

Exacerbation history was considered harmful because it generated a lower net benefit than the either Bertens or ACCEPT, the IMPACT study found.

The benefit of the two risk-prediction tools is that they can be recalibrated, Dr. Sadatsafavi said. “You don’t have that luxury with exacerbation history, because it’s just a fixed positive or negative history,” he said. “We need to be quite cognizant of the difference in lung attacks in different populations and the fact that exacerbation history has very different performance in different groups and might be harmful when applied in certain populations. We suggest the use of the risk-stratification tools as a better proper statistical model.”
 

Expert comment

“As the authors point out, current guidelines for COPD management recommend preventive exacerbation therapy considering the patient’s exacerbation history,” Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Worcester, said via email. “However, this strategy has demonstrated harm in some situations.”

She noted that the multivariable prediction models were more accurate than exacerbation history alone for predicting 12-month risk of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations but that no algorithm was superior in clinical utility across all samples. 

“The authors conclude that the highest accuracy of a risk prediction model can be achieved when the model is recalibrated based on the baseline exacerbation risk of the study population in question,” Dr. Farmer added. 

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Ho, Dr. Sadatsafavi, and Dr. Farmer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Strict control of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease decreases exacerbations and morbimortality, and avoids readmissions. An increasing number of women have the disease, which progresses differently in women than in men and even has different comorbidities.

“Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are more common in older adults, in those with more advanced pulmonary disease, and in those that are hospitalized for an acute exacerbation,” said Belén Alonso, MD, PhD, coordinator of the COPD Working Group of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Up to 73 comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been described. Dr. Alonso made these remarks during her presentation at the Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Panel, which took place during the 43rd Conference of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), in Gijón, Spain.

According to the scientific society’s press release, moderator María Gómez Antúnez, MD, stated, “The correct approach and treatment of these comorbidities is fundamental to improve the quality of life of the patient, decrease exacerbations, avoid readmissions, and decrease morbimortality in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

The different works published, two of them by the SEMI COPD Working Group (ECCO and ESMI studies), indicate that the main comorbidities of patients with that pneumopathy are arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and osteoporosis. Chronic hepatopathy, pulmonary neoplasm, depression, and cerebrovascular disease are less common.
 

73 comorbidities described

Dr. Alonso told this news organization, “Of those 73 comorbidities, some of the lesser known or less attention grabbing, according to a paper that we brought to the panel, include sleep disorders that encompass insomnia, nightmares, night terrors, sleep apneas, or hypopneas. Other lesser-known comorbidities related to cognitive decline, with patterns that reflect that up to 60% [of patients] may have some degree of deterioration, involve the disease phase, hypoxemia, or degree of inflammation. On the other hand, it has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease and gastroesophageal reflux, among many more that arise from the cardiovascular sphere.”

One paper reveals that more than 78% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have one associated comorbidity, almost 69% have two, and 47.9% have three.

“Based on gender, comorbidities are different. In women, it is well observed that anxiety, depression, and osteoporosis are more common. However, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and diabetes are more common in men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” she stated.

“The pulmonary disease in question also progresses differently in men and women. In women, onset is at younger ages – between 40 and 50 years – and in men, after 50. Likewise, it appears that the disease progresses more quickly, which coincides with a worse quality of life (since dyspnea is tolerated less) and exceeds the anatomical differences, where hormonal influences play a dominant role,” Dr. Alonso stressed.
 

Reciprocal prognosis

Dr. Alonso stated, “The prognostic importance of comorbidities in the disease is reciprocal. In other words, if there are comorbidities that we do not look for or treat, they are going to have a negative influence on the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The disease will progress more and elevate the risk of exacerbations (the most important prognostic factor of that disease). In turn, if we are not treating the disease well, not only pharmacologically, it will have negative repercussions on the comorbidities. It will progress and have negative connotations, such as diabetes or ischemic heart disease.”

The aforementioned ECCO and ESMI studies include patients in internal medicine with exacerbations where the most common comorbidities have been mapped out, although there is also extensive research on comorbidities in patients who are admitted to departments other than internal medicine. “With regard to prognostic implications, our working group very clearly observed the comorbidities and the comorbidome, that solar system that appears so much in medical conferences and forums, which implies that proximity to the center of that solar system is related more to mortality, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer. Other pathologies, such as ischemic heart disease or dyslipidemia, are outside of that territory of greater risk, in which we have been more pioneering than other groups,” said Dr. Alonso.

The current trend is that the age of these patients is increasing, and there are more and more women with this pathology. According to the latest report from the Ministry of Health on respiratory diseases, the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population 40 years and older is around 33.9 cases per 1,000 inhabitants, more than twice as common in men than in women (47.7 vs. 21.3). Prevalence increases with age after 40 years progressively until reaching the greatest frequency in the 80- to 84-year-old age group.

In 2019, the number of deaths due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain was 13,808 (9,907 men and 3,901 women), with a crude mortality rate of 29.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. This toll decreased in comparison with that of 2018. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease causes 2.5 times more deaths in men than in women. From 2001 to 2019, mortality due to that pathology declined by 43% in men and women. The decrease was almost 50% in men and 33% in women.
 

Overlap syndrome prevalent

Javier Sánchez Lora, MD, of the internal medicine department of the Virgen de la Victoria de Málaga University Clinical Hospital, discussed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep disorders. More concretely, he spoke about overlap syndrome: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease plus obstructive sleep apnea. According to the international consensus document on obstructive sleep apnea, the diagnosis requires an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) equal to or greater than 15 per hour or equal to or greater than 5. The patient must also have one or more of the following factors: excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep that is not restful, excessive fatigue, and deterioration in quality of life related to sleep and not justified by other causes.

“The overlap syndrome affects 3%-66% of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and 7%-55% of obstructive sleep apnea,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora. This syndrome has important effects on different systems: at the cardiovascular level (arterial and pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, stroke, arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, pulmonary thromboembolism), metabolic (insulin resistance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome), neurocognitive (dementia, depression), and neoplastic (lung, pancreas, esophagus) effects.

“These patients have a worse prognosis than those that have these pathologies alone. During sleep, they experience more frequent episodes of oxygen desaturation and they have a longer total period of sleep with hypoxemia and hypercapnia than those with obstructive apnea alone without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

The apneic events of patients with the syndrome have a more profound hypoxemia and more arrhythmias, in addition to them being more susceptible to developing pulmonary hypertension than those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or sleep apnea alone. “The good news is that in patients with overlap, the use of ventilation with positive pressure reduces all causes of hospitalization and the visits to the emergency room, as well as the moderate and severe exacerbations of the disease.”

Dr. Sánchez Lora referred to a series of recommendations in clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of overlap syndrome: screening, combined therapy of hygienic-dietary measures, and the use of continuous positive respiratory pressure. Oxygen therapy to correct isolated nocturnal desaturations has not shown benefits in survival, although a benefit trial of symptoms attributed to nocturnal hypoxemia in patients with significant comorbidity can be conducted.
 

Underdiagnosis

“During the panel, we also spoke about the importance that as part of internal medicine we need to make an effort to reduce the underdiagnosis of chronic pulmonary disease and its comorbidities. Specialists in internal medicine need to become aware that this pathology is not only pulmonary, but also multisystemic, complex, heterogenous, and very variable even in the same patient,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

Dr. Alonso said, “Regarding the importance of diagnosis of this disease, we continue with an underdiagnosis greater than 70% for men and 80% for women. Secondly, we need to actively seek out the comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, even taking advantage of the admission of these patients with exacerbations, which are undesired and common.

“Regarding ongoing trials, we have a study that started during the COVID-19 pandemic, ADEG-EPOC, that involves the adaptation to and impact of severe and very severe exacerbations in patients admitted to our departments,” the specialist indicated.

“In the group, we are also planning to publish an updated agreement, which we already made in 2014, on the most common and important comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” The agreement discusses the 20 most important comorbidities. In addition, the 2023 Gold Guide, which appeared in November 2022, includes a new chapter on updated treatment and the latest developments.

In the last 5 years, Dr. Alonso has collaborated with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, Ferrer, Fresenius Kabi, GSK, Nestlé, Novo Nordisk, Nutricia, and Menarini. Dr. Sánchez Lora has collaborated with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, GSK, and Menarini.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strict control of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease decreases exacerbations and morbimortality, and avoids readmissions. An increasing number of women have the disease, which progresses differently in women than in men and even has different comorbidities.

“Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are more common in older adults, in those with more advanced pulmonary disease, and in those that are hospitalized for an acute exacerbation,” said Belén Alonso, MD, PhD, coordinator of the COPD Working Group of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Up to 73 comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been described. Dr. Alonso made these remarks during her presentation at the Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Panel, which took place during the 43rd Conference of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), in Gijón, Spain.

According to the scientific society’s press release, moderator María Gómez Antúnez, MD, stated, “The correct approach and treatment of these comorbidities is fundamental to improve the quality of life of the patient, decrease exacerbations, avoid readmissions, and decrease morbimortality in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

The different works published, two of them by the SEMI COPD Working Group (ECCO and ESMI studies), indicate that the main comorbidities of patients with that pneumopathy are arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and osteoporosis. Chronic hepatopathy, pulmonary neoplasm, depression, and cerebrovascular disease are less common.
 

73 comorbidities described

Dr. Alonso told this news organization, “Of those 73 comorbidities, some of the lesser known or less attention grabbing, according to a paper that we brought to the panel, include sleep disorders that encompass insomnia, nightmares, night terrors, sleep apneas, or hypopneas. Other lesser-known comorbidities related to cognitive decline, with patterns that reflect that up to 60% [of patients] may have some degree of deterioration, involve the disease phase, hypoxemia, or degree of inflammation. On the other hand, it has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease and gastroesophageal reflux, among many more that arise from the cardiovascular sphere.”

One paper reveals that more than 78% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have one associated comorbidity, almost 69% have two, and 47.9% have three.

“Based on gender, comorbidities are different. In women, it is well observed that anxiety, depression, and osteoporosis are more common. However, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and diabetes are more common in men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” she stated.

“The pulmonary disease in question also progresses differently in men and women. In women, onset is at younger ages – between 40 and 50 years – and in men, after 50. Likewise, it appears that the disease progresses more quickly, which coincides with a worse quality of life (since dyspnea is tolerated less) and exceeds the anatomical differences, where hormonal influences play a dominant role,” Dr. Alonso stressed.
 

Reciprocal prognosis

Dr. Alonso stated, “The prognostic importance of comorbidities in the disease is reciprocal. In other words, if there are comorbidities that we do not look for or treat, they are going to have a negative influence on the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The disease will progress more and elevate the risk of exacerbations (the most important prognostic factor of that disease). In turn, if we are not treating the disease well, not only pharmacologically, it will have negative repercussions on the comorbidities. It will progress and have negative connotations, such as diabetes or ischemic heart disease.”

The aforementioned ECCO and ESMI studies include patients in internal medicine with exacerbations where the most common comorbidities have been mapped out, although there is also extensive research on comorbidities in patients who are admitted to departments other than internal medicine. “With regard to prognostic implications, our working group very clearly observed the comorbidities and the comorbidome, that solar system that appears so much in medical conferences and forums, which implies that proximity to the center of that solar system is related more to mortality, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer. Other pathologies, such as ischemic heart disease or dyslipidemia, are outside of that territory of greater risk, in which we have been more pioneering than other groups,” said Dr. Alonso.

The current trend is that the age of these patients is increasing, and there are more and more women with this pathology. According to the latest report from the Ministry of Health on respiratory diseases, the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population 40 years and older is around 33.9 cases per 1,000 inhabitants, more than twice as common in men than in women (47.7 vs. 21.3). Prevalence increases with age after 40 years progressively until reaching the greatest frequency in the 80- to 84-year-old age group.

In 2019, the number of deaths due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain was 13,808 (9,907 men and 3,901 women), with a crude mortality rate of 29.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. This toll decreased in comparison with that of 2018. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease causes 2.5 times more deaths in men than in women. From 2001 to 2019, mortality due to that pathology declined by 43% in men and women. The decrease was almost 50% in men and 33% in women.
 

Overlap syndrome prevalent

Javier Sánchez Lora, MD, of the internal medicine department of the Virgen de la Victoria de Málaga University Clinical Hospital, discussed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep disorders. More concretely, he spoke about overlap syndrome: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease plus obstructive sleep apnea. According to the international consensus document on obstructive sleep apnea, the diagnosis requires an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) equal to or greater than 15 per hour or equal to or greater than 5. The patient must also have one or more of the following factors: excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep that is not restful, excessive fatigue, and deterioration in quality of life related to sleep and not justified by other causes.

“The overlap syndrome affects 3%-66% of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and 7%-55% of obstructive sleep apnea,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora. This syndrome has important effects on different systems: at the cardiovascular level (arterial and pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, stroke, arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, pulmonary thromboembolism), metabolic (insulin resistance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome), neurocognitive (dementia, depression), and neoplastic (lung, pancreas, esophagus) effects.

“These patients have a worse prognosis than those that have these pathologies alone. During sleep, they experience more frequent episodes of oxygen desaturation and they have a longer total period of sleep with hypoxemia and hypercapnia than those with obstructive apnea alone without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

The apneic events of patients with the syndrome have a more profound hypoxemia and more arrhythmias, in addition to them being more susceptible to developing pulmonary hypertension than those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or sleep apnea alone. “The good news is that in patients with overlap, the use of ventilation with positive pressure reduces all causes of hospitalization and the visits to the emergency room, as well as the moderate and severe exacerbations of the disease.”

Dr. Sánchez Lora referred to a series of recommendations in clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of overlap syndrome: screening, combined therapy of hygienic-dietary measures, and the use of continuous positive respiratory pressure. Oxygen therapy to correct isolated nocturnal desaturations has not shown benefits in survival, although a benefit trial of symptoms attributed to nocturnal hypoxemia in patients with significant comorbidity can be conducted.
 

Underdiagnosis

“During the panel, we also spoke about the importance that as part of internal medicine we need to make an effort to reduce the underdiagnosis of chronic pulmonary disease and its comorbidities. Specialists in internal medicine need to become aware that this pathology is not only pulmonary, but also multisystemic, complex, heterogenous, and very variable even in the same patient,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

Dr. Alonso said, “Regarding the importance of diagnosis of this disease, we continue with an underdiagnosis greater than 70% for men and 80% for women. Secondly, we need to actively seek out the comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, even taking advantage of the admission of these patients with exacerbations, which are undesired and common.

“Regarding ongoing trials, we have a study that started during the COVID-19 pandemic, ADEG-EPOC, that involves the adaptation to and impact of severe and very severe exacerbations in patients admitted to our departments,” the specialist indicated.

“In the group, we are also planning to publish an updated agreement, which we already made in 2014, on the most common and important comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” The agreement discusses the 20 most important comorbidities. In addition, the 2023 Gold Guide, which appeared in November 2022, includes a new chapter on updated treatment and the latest developments.

In the last 5 years, Dr. Alonso has collaborated with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, Ferrer, Fresenius Kabi, GSK, Nestlé, Novo Nordisk, Nutricia, and Menarini. Dr. Sánchez Lora has collaborated with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, GSK, and Menarini.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strict control of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease decreases exacerbations and morbimortality, and avoids readmissions. An increasing number of women have the disease, which progresses differently in women than in men and even has different comorbidities.

“Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are more common in older adults, in those with more advanced pulmonary disease, and in those that are hospitalized for an acute exacerbation,” said Belén Alonso, MD, PhD, coordinator of the COPD Working Group of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Up to 73 comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been described. Dr. Alonso made these remarks during her presentation at the Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Panel, which took place during the 43rd Conference of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI), in Gijón, Spain.

According to the scientific society’s press release, moderator María Gómez Antúnez, MD, stated, “The correct approach and treatment of these comorbidities is fundamental to improve the quality of life of the patient, decrease exacerbations, avoid readmissions, and decrease morbimortality in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

The different works published, two of them by the SEMI COPD Working Group (ECCO and ESMI studies), indicate that the main comorbidities of patients with that pneumopathy are arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and osteoporosis. Chronic hepatopathy, pulmonary neoplasm, depression, and cerebrovascular disease are less common.
 

73 comorbidities described

Dr. Alonso told this news organization, “Of those 73 comorbidities, some of the lesser known or less attention grabbing, according to a paper that we brought to the panel, include sleep disorders that encompass insomnia, nightmares, night terrors, sleep apneas, or hypopneas. Other lesser-known comorbidities related to cognitive decline, with patterns that reflect that up to 60% [of patients] may have some degree of deterioration, involve the disease phase, hypoxemia, or degree of inflammation. On the other hand, it has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease and gastroesophageal reflux, among many more that arise from the cardiovascular sphere.”

One paper reveals that more than 78% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have one associated comorbidity, almost 69% have two, and 47.9% have three.

“Based on gender, comorbidities are different. In women, it is well observed that anxiety, depression, and osteoporosis are more common. However, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and diabetes are more common in men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” she stated.

“The pulmonary disease in question also progresses differently in men and women. In women, onset is at younger ages – between 40 and 50 years – and in men, after 50. Likewise, it appears that the disease progresses more quickly, which coincides with a worse quality of life (since dyspnea is tolerated less) and exceeds the anatomical differences, where hormonal influences play a dominant role,” Dr. Alonso stressed.
 

Reciprocal prognosis

Dr. Alonso stated, “The prognostic importance of comorbidities in the disease is reciprocal. In other words, if there are comorbidities that we do not look for or treat, they are going to have a negative influence on the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The disease will progress more and elevate the risk of exacerbations (the most important prognostic factor of that disease). In turn, if we are not treating the disease well, not only pharmacologically, it will have negative repercussions on the comorbidities. It will progress and have negative connotations, such as diabetes or ischemic heart disease.”

The aforementioned ECCO and ESMI studies include patients in internal medicine with exacerbations where the most common comorbidities have been mapped out, although there is also extensive research on comorbidities in patients who are admitted to departments other than internal medicine. “With regard to prognostic implications, our working group very clearly observed the comorbidities and the comorbidome, that solar system that appears so much in medical conferences and forums, which implies that proximity to the center of that solar system is related more to mortality, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer. Other pathologies, such as ischemic heart disease or dyslipidemia, are outside of that territory of greater risk, in which we have been more pioneering than other groups,” said Dr. Alonso.

The current trend is that the age of these patients is increasing, and there are more and more women with this pathology. According to the latest report from the Ministry of Health on respiratory diseases, the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population 40 years and older is around 33.9 cases per 1,000 inhabitants, more than twice as common in men than in women (47.7 vs. 21.3). Prevalence increases with age after 40 years progressively until reaching the greatest frequency in the 80- to 84-year-old age group.

In 2019, the number of deaths due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain was 13,808 (9,907 men and 3,901 women), with a crude mortality rate of 29.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. This toll decreased in comparison with that of 2018. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease causes 2.5 times more deaths in men than in women. From 2001 to 2019, mortality due to that pathology declined by 43% in men and women. The decrease was almost 50% in men and 33% in women.
 

Overlap syndrome prevalent

Javier Sánchez Lora, MD, of the internal medicine department of the Virgen de la Victoria de Málaga University Clinical Hospital, discussed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep disorders. More concretely, he spoke about overlap syndrome: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease plus obstructive sleep apnea. According to the international consensus document on obstructive sleep apnea, the diagnosis requires an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) equal to or greater than 15 per hour or equal to or greater than 5. The patient must also have one or more of the following factors: excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep that is not restful, excessive fatigue, and deterioration in quality of life related to sleep and not justified by other causes.

“The overlap syndrome affects 3%-66% of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and 7%-55% of obstructive sleep apnea,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora. This syndrome has important effects on different systems: at the cardiovascular level (arterial and pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, stroke, arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, pulmonary thromboembolism), metabolic (insulin resistance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome), neurocognitive (dementia, depression), and neoplastic (lung, pancreas, esophagus) effects.

“These patients have a worse prognosis than those that have these pathologies alone. During sleep, they experience more frequent episodes of oxygen desaturation and they have a longer total period of sleep with hypoxemia and hypercapnia than those with obstructive apnea alone without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

The apneic events of patients with the syndrome have a more profound hypoxemia and more arrhythmias, in addition to them being more susceptible to developing pulmonary hypertension than those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or sleep apnea alone. “The good news is that in patients with overlap, the use of ventilation with positive pressure reduces all causes of hospitalization and the visits to the emergency room, as well as the moderate and severe exacerbations of the disease.”

Dr. Sánchez Lora referred to a series of recommendations in clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of overlap syndrome: screening, combined therapy of hygienic-dietary measures, and the use of continuous positive respiratory pressure. Oxygen therapy to correct isolated nocturnal desaturations has not shown benefits in survival, although a benefit trial of symptoms attributed to nocturnal hypoxemia in patients with significant comorbidity can be conducted.
 

Underdiagnosis

“During the panel, we also spoke about the importance that as part of internal medicine we need to make an effort to reduce the underdiagnosis of chronic pulmonary disease and its comorbidities. Specialists in internal medicine need to become aware that this pathology is not only pulmonary, but also multisystemic, complex, heterogenous, and very variable even in the same patient,” said Dr. Sánchez Lora.

Dr. Alonso said, “Regarding the importance of diagnosis of this disease, we continue with an underdiagnosis greater than 70% for men and 80% for women. Secondly, we need to actively seek out the comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, even taking advantage of the admission of these patients with exacerbations, which are undesired and common.

“Regarding ongoing trials, we have a study that started during the COVID-19 pandemic, ADEG-EPOC, that involves the adaptation to and impact of severe and very severe exacerbations in patients admitted to our departments,” the specialist indicated.

“In the group, we are also planning to publish an updated agreement, which we already made in 2014, on the most common and important comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” The agreement discusses the 20 most important comorbidities. In addition, the 2023 Gold Guide, which appeared in November 2022, includes a new chapter on updated treatment and the latest developments.

In the last 5 years, Dr. Alonso has collaborated with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, Ferrer, Fresenius Kabi, GSK, Nestlé, Novo Nordisk, Nutricia, and Menarini. Dr. Sánchez Lora has collaborated with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FAES, GSK, and Menarini.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an updated technical standard on lung function interpretation. It’s a critically important document written by a “Who’s Who” in the lung function world. It’s impossible to review in its entirety without more space, so I’ll settle for covering what the authors say about bronchodilator testing. But before I do that, it’s worth reviewing what we think we know about having a patient perform spirometry, inhale a bronchodilator, and then repeat it. This is colloquially referred to as pre- and postbronchodilator testing.

Administering a bronchodilator and measuring changes in lung function seems simple and intuitive. It is biologically plausible that improvement would predict treatment response. It should allow for phenotyping airway diseases and quantifying exacerbation risk. It is easy to perform and can be done in the clinic. But in practice it falls short of its purpose, in part because of technical factors but also because it doesn’t really have a purpose.

The last interpretative strategies document from the ERS/ATS was published in 2005. Reading it many years ago, I was struck by the contrast between our reliance on bronchodilator response and its lack of standardization. It seemed that there was none. After making statements like, “There is no consensus on what constitutes reversibility in subjects with airflow obstruction” and “There is no consensus on how a bronchodilator response should be expressed, the variables to be used, and finally, the kind, dose, and inhalation mode of bronchodilator agent,” the 2005 ERS/ATS authors suggest using the criteria most clinicians are familiar with: A change of 12% and 200 cc in FEV₁ or FVC marks a “significant” bronchodilator response. Four puffs of albuterol (100 mcg each for a total of 400 mcg) with a 15- to 20-minute wait before repeat spirometry is also suggested.

The 2005 iteration acknowledges that a significant bronchodilator response isn’t a very accurate predictor of, well, anything. It doesn’t reliably differentiate COPD from asthma and it’s never been as sensitive as bronchoprovocation testing for diagnosing airway reactivity. The absence of a significant bronchodilator response does not preclude a 2-month trial of the same medicine used to test for response. Given these problems with standardization and accuracy, I was left wondering why anyone bothers ordering the test at all.

In my own practice, I continued to order, conduct, and interpret bronchodilator response according to the suggestions made by the ERS/ATS in 2005 when trying to diagnose asthma. I recognized that a nonsignificant response meant nothing, but bronchodilator response testing was easier to obtain than bronchoprovocation at my hospital. It was a matter of convenience for me and the patient. According to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Guidelines, a significant bronchodilator response conducted and interpreted as recommended by the ERS/ATS 2005 standard provides objective confirmation of asthma in the presence of characteristic clinical symptoms.

The headline from the ERS/ATS 2022 Technical Standard is that the 12% and 200-cc criteria suggested in 2005 are being retired. Why? Well, much of the variability in the 2005 criteria is explained by height, age, sex, and baseline lung function. These factors obscure change related to intrinsic airway abnormalities. Instead, the authors suggest using a threshold change in the predicted values of FEV₁ and FVC to determine a significant response. Because predicted values incorporate age, height, and sex, the impact from these variables is minimized. Using a percent predicted (PPD) threshold will also minimize the effect from the inverse relationship between measured values and bronchodilator response.

A 10% change in the PPD value for either FEV₁ or FVC constitutes a significant bronchodilator response. Ten percent was chosen because it represents the statistically defined upper limit of normal response; and a greater than 8% change in bronchodilator response is associated with mortality, implying that values above this threshold connote disease. The technical standard seems to be on solid ground here; the rationale is mathematically appropriate and evidence based. The new definition will certainly improve precision.

There’s really no progress on accuracy, though. There are no comments on the protocol to be followed or clinical indications. The reader is referred to the ERS/ATS 2019 technical statement on standardization of spirometry. The statement on standardization is short on details, too, and refers the reader to an online supplement for a suggested protocol. The suggested protocol is identical to that suggested in 2005.

In summary, not a lot is different in the world of bronchodilator response testing. The definition is different now, and though it’s likely to be more precise, we still don’t know enough about accuracy. It’s nice to know that the new criteria will predict mortality, but in clinical practice we don’t use the test for that purpose. The 2022 technical standard acknowledges this and other limitations in a “future directions” paragraph. Perhaps we’ll know more when the next iteration is published.

Dr. Holley is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary medicine/critical care physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm and the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an updated technical standard on lung function interpretation. It’s a critically important document written by a “Who’s Who” in the lung function world. It’s impossible to review in its entirety without more space, so I’ll settle for covering what the authors say about bronchodilator testing. But before I do that, it’s worth reviewing what we think we know about having a patient perform spirometry, inhale a bronchodilator, and then repeat it. This is colloquially referred to as pre- and postbronchodilator testing.

Administering a bronchodilator and measuring changes in lung function seems simple and intuitive. It is biologically plausible that improvement would predict treatment response. It should allow for phenotyping airway diseases and quantifying exacerbation risk. It is easy to perform and can be done in the clinic. But in practice it falls short of its purpose, in part because of technical factors but also because it doesn’t really have a purpose.

The last interpretative strategies document from the ERS/ATS was published in 2005. Reading it many years ago, I was struck by the contrast between our reliance on bronchodilator response and its lack of standardization. It seemed that there was none. After making statements like, “There is no consensus on what constitutes reversibility in subjects with airflow obstruction” and “There is no consensus on how a bronchodilator response should be expressed, the variables to be used, and finally, the kind, dose, and inhalation mode of bronchodilator agent,” the 2005 ERS/ATS authors suggest using the criteria most clinicians are familiar with: A change of 12% and 200 cc in FEV₁ or FVC marks a “significant” bronchodilator response. Four puffs of albuterol (100 mcg each for a total of 400 mcg) with a 15- to 20-minute wait before repeat spirometry is also suggested.

The 2005 iteration acknowledges that a significant bronchodilator response isn’t a very accurate predictor of, well, anything. It doesn’t reliably differentiate COPD from asthma and it’s never been as sensitive as bronchoprovocation testing for diagnosing airway reactivity. The absence of a significant bronchodilator response does not preclude a 2-month trial of the same medicine used to test for response. Given these problems with standardization and accuracy, I was left wondering why anyone bothers ordering the test at all.

In my own practice, I continued to order, conduct, and interpret bronchodilator response according to the suggestions made by the ERS/ATS in 2005 when trying to diagnose asthma. I recognized that a nonsignificant response meant nothing, but bronchodilator response testing was easier to obtain than bronchoprovocation at my hospital. It was a matter of convenience for me and the patient. According to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Guidelines, a significant bronchodilator response conducted and interpreted as recommended by the ERS/ATS 2005 standard provides objective confirmation of asthma in the presence of characteristic clinical symptoms.

The headline from the ERS/ATS 2022 Technical Standard is that the 12% and 200-cc criteria suggested in 2005 are being retired. Why? Well, much of the variability in the 2005 criteria is explained by height, age, sex, and baseline lung function. These factors obscure change related to intrinsic airway abnormalities. Instead, the authors suggest using a threshold change in the predicted values of FEV₁ and FVC to determine a significant response. Because predicted values incorporate age, height, and sex, the impact from these variables is minimized. Using a percent predicted (PPD) threshold will also minimize the effect from the inverse relationship between measured values and bronchodilator response.

A 10% change in the PPD value for either FEV₁ or FVC constitutes a significant bronchodilator response. Ten percent was chosen because it represents the statistically defined upper limit of normal response; and a greater than 8% change in bronchodilator response is associated with mortality, implying that values above this threshold connote disease. The technical standard seems to be on solid ground here; the rationale is mathematically appropriate and evidence based. The new definition will certainly improve precision.

There’s really no progress on accuracy, though. There are no comments on the protocol to be followed or clinical indications. The reader is referred to the ERS/ATS 2019 technical statement on standardization of spirometry. The statement on standardization is short on details, too, and refers the reader to an online supplement for a suggested protocol. The suggested protocol is identical to that suggested in 2005.

In summary, not a lot is different in the world of bronchodilator response testing. The definition is different now, and though it’s likely to be more precise, we still don’t know enough about accuracy. It’s nice to know that the new criteria will predict mortality, but in clinical practice we don’t use the test for that purpose. The 2022 technical standard acknowledges this and other limitations in a “future directions” paragraph. Perhaps we’ll know more when the next iteration is published.

Dr. Holley is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary medicine/critical care physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm and the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an updated technical standard on lung function interpretation. It’s a critically important document written by a “Who’s Who” in the lung function world. It’s impossible to review in its entirety without more space, so I’ll settle for covering what the authors say about bronchodilator testing. But before I do that, it’s worth reviewing what we think we know about having a patient perform spirometry, inhale a bronchodilator, and then repeat it. This is colloquially referred to as pre- and postbronchodilator testing.

Administering a bronchodilator and measuring changes in lung function seems simple and intuitive. It is biologically plausible that improvement would predict treatment response. It should allow for phenotyping airway diseases and quantifying exacerbation risk. It is easy to perform and can be done in the clinic. But in practice it falls short of its purpose, in part because of technical factors but also because it doesn’t really have a purpose.

The last interpretative strategies document from the ERS/ATS was published in 2005. Reading it many years ago, I was struck by the contrast between our reliance on bronchodilator response and its lack of standardization. It seemed that there was none. After making statements like, “There is no consensus on what constitutes reversibility in subjects with airflow obstruction” and “There is no consensus on how a bronchodilator response should be expressed, the variables to be used, and finally, the kind, dose, and inhalation mode of bronchodilator agent,” the 2005 ERS/ATS authors suggest using the criteria most clinicians are familiar with: A change of 12% and 200 cc in FEV₁ or FVC marks a “significant” bronchodilator response. Four puffs of albuterol (100 mcg each for a total of 400 mcg) with a 15- to 20-minute wait before repeat spirometry is also suggested.

The 2005 iteration acknowledges that a significant bronchodilator response isn’t a very accurate predictor of, well, anything. It doesn’t reliably differentiate COPD from asthma and it’s never been as sensitive as bronchoprovocation testing for diagnosing airway reactivity. The absence of a significant bronchodilator response does not preclude a 2-month trial of the same medicine used to test for response. Given these problems with standardization and accuracy, I was left wondering why anyone bothers ordering the test at all.

In my own practice, I continued to order, conduct, and interpret bronchodilator response according to the suggestions made by the ERS/ATS in 2005 when trying to diagnose asthma. I recognized that a nonsignificant response meant nothing, but bronchodilator response testing was easier to obtain than bronchoprovocation at my hospital. It was a matter of convenience for me and the patient. According to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Guidelines, a significant bronchodilator response conducted and interpreted as recommended by the ERS/ATS 2005 standard provides objective confirmation of asthma in the presence of characteristic clinical symptoms.

The headline from the ERS/ATS 2022 Technical Standard is that the 12% and 200-cc criteria suggested in 2005 are being retired. Why? Well, much of the variability in the 2005 criteria is explained by height, age, sex, and baseline lung function. These factors obscure change related to intrinsic airway abnormalities. Instead, the authors suggest using a threshold change in the predicted values of FEV₁ and FVC to determine a significant response. Because predicted values incorporate age, height, and sex, the impact from these variables is minimized. Using a percent predicted (PPD) threshold will also minimize the effect from the inverse relationship between measured values and bronchodilator response.

A 10% change in the PPD value for either FEV₁ or FVC constitutes a significant bronchodilator response. Ten percent was chosen because it represents the statistically defined upper limit of normal response; and a greater than 8% change in bronchodilator response is associated with mortality, implying that values above this threshold connote disease. The technical standard seems to be on solid ground here; the rationale is mathematically appropriate and evidence based. The new definition will certainly improve precision.

There’s really no progress on accuracy, though. There are no comments on the protocol to be followed or clinical indications. The reader is referred to the ERS/ATS 2019 technical statement on standardization of spirometry. The statement on standardization is short on details, too, and refers the reader to an online supplement for a suggested protocol. The suggested protocol is identical to that suggested in 2005.

In summary, not a lot is different in the world of bronchodilator response testing. The definition is different now, and though it’s likely to be more precise, we still don’t know enough about accuracy. It’s nice to know that the new criteria will predict mortality, but in clinical practice we don’t use the test for that purpose. The 2022 technical standard acknowledges this and other limitations in a “future directions” paragraph. Perhaps we’ll know more when the next iteration is published.

Dr. Holley is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary medicine/critical care physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm and the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and homozygous for the F508 mutation, the combination of lumacaftor and ivacaftor appears generally safe, and biomarker data suggest its efficacy, according to results from a new open-label phase 3 trial.

In September, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumacaftor/ivacaftor for patients aged 1 years and above. Waiting in the wings is the triple combination of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ETI), which is available for patients with at least one copy of the F508 mutation aged 6 and over. ETI is also being tested in younger patients.

One driving factor for early treatment is countering the malnutrition that can occur among CF patients because of poor pancreatic insufficiency and chronic inflammation. “We’ve known for many years that (being) at or above average body weight and height predict better lung function. And we’ve known for quite a while that the height-for-age percentile, in preschool years, actually predicts your lung function later, and how long you’re going to live, so nutrition is incredibly important,” said study author Susanna McColley, MD, in an interview. It’s also difficult to use lung function tests in young children, since even adults can find them challenging, she said.

“FEV₁ [forced expiratory volume in 1 second] is the strongest predictor of survival, and then nutrition is the highest predictor of FEV₁, so that’s kind of the construct. They had similar improvement in the functional measures of their pancreas and in the measures of inflammation in the gut. I think the story here is that starting a modulator early has a likelihood to have positive health effects that go forward. We can’t say that from the data in the paper. It’s a 24-week study, but looking at the pancreatic and intestinal functioning and also the fact that there was a decrease in sweat chloride is important,” said Dr. McColley, who is a professor of pediatrics in pulmonary and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The study adds more evidence that earlier treatment in CF may lead to better outcomes, but the digestive improvements are an overlooked factor, according to Dr. McColley. “Even with early treatment, and even with pancreatic enzymes and supplements taken to digest food, it’s a huge burden. When they come in and say that digestion seems better, there is less bloating, things like that, these are the things that aren’t captured so much in the clinical trial data, but they’re meaningful to families,” she said.

Single-agent ivacaftor is available for children as young as 4 months, but is limited to patients with the G551D gating mutation. Most young children with CF can only be treated for symptoms.

The lack of new safety signals in the new study is reassuring, and the research presents some hope to young children who are not yet eligible to receive ETI, according to Carlos Milla, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonary physician at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We already know that the next version of this drug is much more efficacious, the triple-combination therapy. It’s a little bit like we’re falling behind when it comes to treating these young kids because we are offering right now what we know is a less effective drug as opposed to the ones that are available now down to age 6, and hopefully sometime soon down to age 2. It’s better [than] to have no treatment at all, so it’s a good start,” said Dr. Milla.

“I think this is a great bridge for babies while they’re waiting to grow up to be old enough to get [triple combination therapy] and will prevent some of the complications until they can get the even more highly effective therapy in the future,” said Jennifer Taylor-Cousar, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar is codirector of the Adult CF Program at National Jewish Health, Denver.

She also noted that the therapy could rapidly become more important. Since the approval of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in 2019, pregnancies in women with CF have increased markedly. There were 310 such pregnancies in 2019, and 675 in 2020 after the combination became generally available in November of 2019. Many of the resulting babies had false-negative CF diagnoses because the mother was taking the triple combination and the medication crossed the placenta and prevented disease progression. The drugs are present in breast milk, but when breastfeeding isn’t possible, newborns are left without a therapeutic option. “There was no approval for babies who had two copies of F508. This helps tremendously with that albeit small population, although I suspect it may grow larger over the upcoming years as we continue to see so many pregnancies in women with CF because they are so much healthier,” said Dr. Taylor-Cousar.

The study was a phase 3, open-label trial with a cohort aged 18-24 months (cohort 1, n = 14) and another aged 12-18 months (cohort 2, n = 46). Participants received a 15-day treatment with a dose based on weight at screening. Participants then underwent a 24-week treatment period with a dose determined by pharmacokinetic data collected during the initial treatment, the authors wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

A total of 95.7% of children experienced adverse events during the 24-week treatment period; 52.2% of events were mild, and 39.1% were moderate. The most frequent adverse events were cough (34.8%), infective exacerbation of CF (21.7%), pyrexia (21.7%), and vomiting (17.4%); 10.9% had elevations of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase higher than three times the upper limit of normal, and one (2.2%) had concentrations of both high enough that the study drug was discontinued.

There were significant reductions in sweat chloride concentration at week 24, suggesting strong efficacy (–29.1 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, –34.8 to –23.4 mmol/L). Body mass, weight, and length remained normal during the 24-week treatment period, and there were trends towards improvement in biomarkers of pancreatic function and intestinal inflammation, including fecal elastase-1 (+73.1mcg/g; 95% CI, 29.40-116.80 mcg/g), serum immunoreactive trypsinogen (–295.50 mcg/g; 95% CI, –416.60 to –174.50 mcg/g), and fecal calprotectin (–106.63 mg/kg; 95% CI, –180.60 to –32.66 mg/kg)

Dr. McColley, Dr. Taylor-Cousar, and Dr. Milla have no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Merck.

In children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and homozygous for the F508 mutation, the combination of lumacaftor and ivacaftor appears generally safe, and biomarker data suggest its efficacy, according to results from a new open-label phase 3 trial.

In September, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumacaftor/ivacaftor for patients aged 1 years and above. Waiting in the wings is the triple combination of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ETI), which is available for patients with at least one copy of the F508 mutation aged 6 and over. ETI is also being tested in younger patients.

One driving factor for early treatment is countering the malnutrition that can occur among CF patients because of poor pancreatic insufficiency and chronic inflammation. “We’ve known for many years that (being) at or above average body weight and height predict better lung function. And we’ve known for quite a while that the height-for-age percentile, in preschool years, actually predicts your lung function later, and how long you’re going to live, so nutrition is incredibly important,” said study author Susanna McColley, MD, in an interview. It’s also difficult to use lung function tests in young children, since even adults can find them challenging, she said.

“FEV₁ [forced expiratory volume in 1 second] is the strongest predictor of survival, and then nutrition is the highest predictor of FEV₁, so that’s kind of the construct. They had similar improvement in the functional measures of their pancreas and in the measures of inflammation in the gut. I think the story here is that starting a modulator early has a likelihood to have positive health effects that go forward. We can’t say that from the data in the paper. It’s a 24-week study, but looking at the pancreatic and intestinal functioning and also the fact that there was a decrease in sweat chloride is important,” said Dr. McColley, who is a professor of pediatrics in pulmonary and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The study adds more evidence that earlier treatment in CF may lead to better outcomes, but the digestive improvements are an overlooked factor, according to Dr. McColley. “Even with early treatment, and even with pancreatic enzymes and supplements taken to digest food, it’s a huge burden. When they come in and say that digestion seems better, there is less bloating, things like that, these are the things that aren’t captured so much in the clinical trial data, but they’re meaningful to families,” she said.

Single-agent ivacaftor is available for children as young as 4 months, but is limited to patients with the G551D gating mutation. Most young children with CF can only be treated for symptoms.

The lack of new safety signals in the new study is reassuring, and the research presents some hope to young children who are not yet eligible to receive ETI, according to Carlos Milla, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonary physician at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We already know that the next version of this drug is much more efficacious, the triple-combination therapy. It’s a little bit like we’re falling behind when it comes to treating these young kids because we are offering right now what we know is a less effective drug as opposed to the ones that are available now down to age 6, and hopefully sometime soon down to age 2. It’s better [than] to have no treatment at all, so it’s a good start,” said Dr. Milla.

“I think this is a great bridge for babies while they’re waiting to grow up to be old enough to get [triple combination therapy] and will prevent some of the complications until they can get the even more highly effective therapy in the future,” said Jennifer Taylor-Cousar, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar is codirector of the Adult CF Program at National Jewish Health, Denver.

She also noted that the therapy could rapidly become more important. Since the approval of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in 2019, pregnancies in women with CF have increased markedly. There were 310 such pregnancies in 2019, and 675 in 2020 after the combination became generally available in November of 2019. Many of the resulting babies had false-negative CF diagnoses because the mother was taking the triple combination and the medication crossed the placenta and prevented disease progression. The drugs are present in breast milk, but when breastfeeding isn’t possible, newborns are left without a therapeutic option. “There was no approval for babies who had two copies of F508. This helps tremendously with that albeit small population, although I suspect it may grow larger over the upcoming years as we continue to see so many pregnancies in women with CF because they are so much healthier,” said Dr. Taylor-Cousar.

The study was a phase 3, open-label trial with a cohort aged 18-24 months (cohort 1, n = 14) and another aged 12-18 months (cohort 2, n = 46). Participants received a 15-day treatment with a dose based on weight at screening. Participants then underwent a 24-week treatment period with a dose determined by pharmacokinetic data collected during the initial treatment, the authors wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

A total of 95.7% of children experienced adverse events during the 24-week treatment period; 52.2% of events were mild, and 39.1% were moderate. The most frequent adverse events were cough (34.8%), infective exacerbation of CF (21.7%), pyrexia (21.7%), and vomiting (17.4%); 10.9% had elevations of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase higher than three times the upper limit of normal, and one (2.2%) had concentrations of both high enough that the study drug was discontinued.

There were significant reductions in sweat chloride concentration at week 24, suggesting strong efficacy (–29.1 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, –34.8 to –23.4 mmol/L). Body mass, weight, and length remained normal during the 24-week treatment period, and there were trends towards improvement in biomarkers of pancreatic function and intestinal inflammation, including fecal elastase-1 (+73.1mcg/g; 95% CI, 29.40-116.80 mcg/g), serum immunoreactive trypsinogen (–295.50 mcg/g; 95% CI, –416.60 to –174.50 mcg/g), and fecal calprotectin (–106.63 mg/kg; 95% CI, –180.60 to –32.66 mg/kg)

Dr. McColley, Dr. Taylor-Cousar, and Dr. Milla have no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Merck.

In children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and homozygous for the F508 mutation, the combination of lumacaftor and ivacaftor appears generally safe, and biomarker data suggest its efficacy, according to results from a new open-label phase 3 trial.

In September, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumacaftor/ivacaftor for patients aged 1 years and above. Waiting in the wings is the triple combination of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ETI), which is available for patients with at least one copy of the F508 mutation aged 6 and over. ETI is also being tested in younger patients.

One driving factor for early treatment is countering the malnutrition that can occur among CF patients because of poor pancreatic insufficiency and chronic inflammation. “We’ve known for many years that (being) at or above average body weight and height predict better lung function. And we’ve known for quite a while that the height-for-age percentile, in preschool years, actually predicts your lung function later, and how long you’re going to live, so nutrition is incredibly important,” said study author Susanna McColley, MD, in an interview. It’s also difficult to use lung function tests in young children, since even adults can find them challenging, she said.

“FEV₁ [forced expiratory volume in 1 second] is the strongest predictor of survival, and then nutrition is the highest predictor of FEV₁, so that’s kind of the construct. They had similar improvement in the functional measures of their pancreas and in the measures of inflammation in the gut. I think the story here is that starting a modulator early has a likelihood to have positive health effects that go forward. We can’t say that from the data in the paper. It’s a 24-week study, but looking at the pancreatic and intestinal functioning and also the fact that there was a decrease in sweat chloride is important,” said Dr. McColley, who is a professor of pediatrics in pulmonary and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The study adds more evidence that earlier treatment in CF may lead to better outcomes, but the digestive improvements are an overlooked factor, according to Dr. McColley. “Even with early treatment, and even with pancreatic enzymes and supplements taken to digest food, it’s a huge burden. When they come in and say that digestion seems better, there is less bloating, things like that, these are the things that aren’t captured so much in the clinical trial data, but they’re meaningful to families,” she said.

Single-agent ivacaftor is available for children as young as 4 months, but is limited to patients with the G551D gating mutation. Most young children with CF can only be treated for symptoms.

The lack of new safety signals in the new study is reassuring, and the research presents some hope to young children who are not yet eligible to receive ETI, according to Carlos Milla, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonary physician at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We already know that the next version of this drug is much more efficacious, the triple-combination therapy. It’s a little bit like we’re falling behind when it comes to treating these young kids because we are offering right now what we know is a less effective drug as opposed to the ones that are available now down to age 6, and hopefully sometime soon down to age 2. It’s better [than] to have no treatment at all, so it’s a good start,” said Dr. Milla.

“I think this is a great bridge for babies while they’re waiting to grow up to be old enough to get [triple combination therapy] and will prevent some of the complications until they can get the even more highly effective therapy in the future,” said Jennifer Taylor-Cousar, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar is codirector of the Adult CF Program at National Jewish Health, Denver.

She also noted that the therapy could rapidly become more important. Since the approval of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in 2019, pregnancies in women with CF have increased markedly. There were 310 such pregnancies in 2019, and 675 in 2020 after the combination became generally available in November of 2019. Many of the resulting babies had false-negative CF diagnoses because the mother was taking the triple combination and the medication crossed the placenta and prevented disease progression. The drugs are present in breast milk, but when breastfeeding isn’t possible, newborns are left without a therapeutic option. “There was no approval for babies who had two copies of F508. This helps tremendously with that albeit small population, although I suspect it may grow larger over the upcoming years as we continue to see so many pregnancies in women with CF because they are so much healthier,” said Dr. Taylor-Cousar.

The study was a phase 3, open-label trial with a cohort aged 18-24 months (cohort 1, n = 14) and another aged 12-18 months (cohort 2, n = 46). Participants received a 15-day treatment with a dose based on weight at screening. Participants then underwent a 24-week treatment period with a dose determined by pharmacokinetic data collected during the initial treatment, the authors wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

A total of 95.7% of children experienced adverse events during the 24-week treatment period; 52.2% of events were mild, and 39.1% were moderate. The most frequent adverse events were cough (34.8%), infective exacerbation of CF (21.7%), pyrexia (21.7%), and vomiting (17.4%); 10.9% had elevations of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase higher than three times the upper limit of normal, and one (2.2%) had concentrations of both high enough that the study drug was discontinued.

There were significant reductions in sweat chloride concentration at week 24, suggesting strong efficacy (–29.1 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, –34.8 to –23.4 mmol/L). Body mass, weight, and length remained normal during the 24-week treatment period, and there were trends towards improvement in biomarkers of pancreatic function and intestinal inflammation, including fecal elastase-1 (+73.1mcg/g; 95% CI, 29.40-116.80 mcg/g), serum immunoreactive trypsinogen (–295.50 mcg/g; 95% CI, –416.60 to –174.50 mcg/g), and fecal calprotectin (–106.63 mg/kg; 95% CI, –180.60 to –32.66 mg/kg)

Dr. McColley, Dr. Taylor-Cousar, and Dr. Milla have no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Merck.

Dapper homolog 2 attenuated pulmonary fibrosis development and suppressed glycosis in myofibroblasts, suggesting potential as a therapeutic target for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, based on data from mouse models.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains a challenge with poor prognosis, and current therapeutic options are limited, wrote Xiaofan Lai, of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that myofibroblasts are key contributors to fibrosis in IPF, they said.

Dishevelled-associated antagonist of beta-catenin 2 (DACT2) is an antagonist in the DACT gene family and associated with tissue development and injury, but its function and potential therapeutic role in IPF has not been explored; specifically, “whether DACT2 participates in the dysregulated glycolysis of myofibroblasts remains unknown,” they said.

In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, the researchers examined adeno-associated virus serotype 6 (AAV6)-mediated DACT2 overexpression in experimental pulmonary fibrosis using mouse models.

The researchers injected AAV6 vectors into the lungs of mice to overexpress DACT2. The DACT2 overexpression “effectively attenuated both bleomycin-induced and AdTGF-beta-1-induced pulmonary fibrosis murine models in vivo, as evidenced by the alleviation of myofibroblast differentiation and collagen accumulation,” they said.

They found that overexpression of DACT2 was associated with glucose uptake, extracellular acidification rate, intracellular adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) level, and lactate levels of myofibroblasts.

The researchers also conducted in vitro experiments in which they treated lung fibroblasts with cycloheximide (CHX), a protein synthesis inhibitor. These experiments showed that DACT2 inhibited differentiation of lung myofibroblasts by downregulating lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA), which caused suppression of glycolysis in myofibroblasts.

“Aerobic glycolysis is an important method of energy generation, and several studies have shown that enhanced glycolysis facilitates the progression of pulmonary fibrosis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

More research is needed outside of mouse models and in vitro studies, but the current study is the first known to explore the relationship between DACT2 and LDHA in pulmonary fibrosis, and the results provide evidence of the potential benefits of DACT2 in treating lung disorders, the researchers wrote.

“We hope this research will lay the theoretical foundation for finding novel therapeutics to alleviate or reverse the development of pulmonary fibrosis and other chronic lung disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Regional Joint Fund-Youth Fund projects of Guangdong Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dapper homolog 2 attenuated pulmonary fibrosis development and suppressed glycosis in myofibroblasts, suggesting potential as a therapeutic target for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, based on data from mouse models.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains a challenge with poor prognosis, and current therapeutic options are limited, wrote Xiaofan Lai, of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that myofibroblasts are key contributors to fibrosis in IPF, they said.

Dishevelled-associated antagonist of beta-catenin 2 (DACT2) is an antagonist in the DACT gene family and associated with tissue development and injury, but its function and potential therapeutic role in IPF has not been explored; specifically, “whether DACT2 participates in the dysregulated glycolysis of myofibroblasts remains unknown,” they said.

In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, the researchers examined adeno-associated virus serotype 6 (AAV6)-mediated DACT2 overexpression in experimental pulmonary fibrosis using mouse models.

The researchers injected AAV6 vectors into the lungs of mice to overexpress DACT2. The DACT2 overexpression “effectively attenuated both bleomycin-induced and AdTGF-beta-1-induced pulmonary fibrosis murine models in vivo, as evidenced by the alleviation of myofibroblast differentiation and collagen accumulation,” they said.

They found that overexpression of DACT2 was associated with glucose uptake, extracellular acidification rate, intracellular adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) level, and lactate levels of myofibroblasts.

The researchers also conducted in vitro experiments in which they treated lung fibroblasts with cycloheximide (CHX), a protein synthesis inhibitor. These experiments showed that DACT2 inhibited differentiation of lung myofibroblasts by downregulating lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA), which caused suppression of glycolysis in myofibroblasts.

“Aerobic glycolysis is an important method of energy generation, and several studies have shown that enhanced glycolysis facilitates the progression of pulmonary fibrosis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

More research is needed outside of mouse models and in vitro studies, but the current study is the first known to explore the relationship between DACT2 and LDHA in pulmonary fibrosis, and the results provide evidence of the potential benefits of DACT2 in treating lung disorders, the researchers wrote.

“We hope this research will lay the theoretical foundation for finding novel therapeutics to alleviate or reverse the development of pulmonary fibrosis and other chronic lung disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Regional Joint Fund-Youth Fund projects of Guangdong Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dapper homolog 2 attenuated pulmonary fibrosis development and suppressed glycosis in myofibroblasts, suggesting potential as a therapeutic target for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, based on data from mouse models.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains a challenge with poor prognosis, and current therapeutic options are limited, wrote Xiaofan Lai, of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues. Previous studies suggest that myofibroblasts are key contributors to fibrosis in IPF, they said.

Dishevelled-associated antagonist of beta-catenin 2 (DACT2) is an antagonist in the DACT gene family and associated with tissue development and injury, but its function and potential therapeutic role in IPF has not been explored; specifically, “whether DACT2 participates in the dysregulated glycolysis of myofibroblasts remains unknown,” they said.

In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, the researchers examined adeno-associated virus serotype 6 (AAV6)-mediated DACT2 overexpression in experimental pulmonary fibrosis using mouse models.

The researchers injected AAV6 vectors into the lungs of mice to overexpress DACT2. The DACT2 overexpression “effectively attenuated both bleomycin-induced and AdTGF-beta-1-induced pulmonary fibrosis murine models in vivo, as evidenced by the alleviation of myofibroblast differentiation and collagen accumulation,” they said.

They found that overexpression of DACT2 was associated with glucose uptake, extracellular acidification rate, intracellular adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) level, and lactate levels of myofibroblasts.

The researchers also conducted in vitro experiments in which they treated lung fibroblasts with cycloheximide (CHX), a protein synthesis inhibitor. These experiments showed that DACT2 inhibited differentiation of lung myofibroblasts by downregulating lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA), which caused suppression of glycolysis in myofibroblasts.

“Aerobic glycolysis is an important method of energy generation, and several studies have shown that enhanced glycolysis facilitates the progression of pulmonary fibrosis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

More research is needed outside of mouse models and in vitro studies, but the current study is the first known to explore the relationship between DACT2 and LDHA in pulmonary fibrosis, and the results provide evidence of the potential benefits of DACT2 in treating lung disorders, the researchers wrote.

“We hope this research will lay the theoretical foundation for finding novel therapeutics to alleviate or reverse the development of pulmonary fibrosis and other chronic lung disorders,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Regional Joint Fund-Youth Fund projects of Guangdong Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.