Pulmonology

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old woman presents to your office for a well-woman exam. Her past medical history includes a 22-pack-year smoking history (she quit 5 years ago), well-controlled hypertension, and mild obesity. She has no family history of cancer, but she does have a family history of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Besides age- and risk-appropriate laboratory tests, cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and initial colon cancer screening, are there any other preventive services you would offer her?

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women, and it is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States—regardless of gender. The American Cancer Society estimates that 235,760 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer and 131,880 people will die of the disease in 2021.²

In the 2015 National Cancer Institute report on the economic costs of cancer, direct and indirect costs of lung cancer totaled $21.1 billion annually. Lost productivity from lung cancer added another $36.1 billion in annual costs.³ The economic costs increased to $23.8 billion in 2020, with no data on lost productivity.⁴

Smoking tobacco is by far the primary risk factor for lung cancer, and it is estimated to account for 90% of all lung cancer cases. Compared with nonsmokers, the relative risk of lung cancer is approximately 20 times higher for smokers.^5,6

Because the median age of lung cancer diagnosis is 70 years, increasing age is also considered a risk factor for lung cancer.^2,7

Although lung cancer has a relatively poor prognosis—with an average 5-year survival rate of 20.5%—early-stage lung cancer is more amenable to treatment and has a better prognosis (as is true with many cancers).¹

LDCT has a high sensitivity, as well as a reasonable specificity, for lung cancer detection. There is demonstrated benefit in screening patients who are at high risk for lung cancer.^8-11 In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual lung cancer screening (B recommendation) with LDCT in adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30-pack-year smoking history, and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Broader eligibility for screening supports mortality benefit

This is an update to the 2013 clinical practice guideline on lung cancer screening. The USPSTF used 2 methods to provide the best possible evidence for the recommendations. The first method was a systematic review of the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with LDCT, evaluating both the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening. The systematic review examined various subgroups, the number and/or frequency of LDCT scans, and various approaches to reducing false-positive results. In addition to the systematic review, they used collaborative modeling studies to determine the optimal age for beginning and ending screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of various screening strategies. These modeling studies complemented the evidence review.

This updated guideline nearly doubles eligibility for lung cancer screening using low-dose CT scanning.

The review included 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus the modeling studies. Only the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; N = 53,454) and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial (N = 15,792) had adequate power to detect a mortality benefit from screening (NLST: relative risk reduction = 16%; 95% CI, 5%-25%; NELSON: incidence rate ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) compared with no screening.

Screening intervals, from the NLST and NELSON trials as well as the modeling studies, revealed the greatest benefit from annual screening (statistics not shared). Evidence also showed that screening those with lighter smoking histories (< 30 pack-years) and at an earlier age (age 50) provided increased mortality benefit. No evidence was found for a benefit of screening past 80 years of age. The modeling studies concluded that the 2013 USPSTF screening program, using a starting age of 55 and a 30-pack-year smoking history, would reduce mortality by 9.8%, but by changing to a starting age of 50, a 20-pack-year smoking history, and annual screening, the mortality benefit was increased to 13%.^1,11

Comparison with computer-based risk prediction models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) revealed insufficient evidence at this time to show that prediction model–based screening offered any benefit beyond that of the age and smoking history risk factor model.

The incidence of false-positive results was > 25% in the NLST at baseline and at 1 year. Use of a classification system such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) could reduce that from 26.6% to 12.8%.² Another potential harm from LDCT screening is radiation exposure. Evidence from several RCTs and cohort studies showed the exposure from 1 LDCT scan to be 0.65 to 2.36 mSv, whereas the annual background radiation in the United States is 2.4 mSv. The modeling studies estimated that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

Expanded age range, reduced pack-year history

Annual lung cancer screening is now recommended to begin for patients at age 50 years with a 20-pack-year history instead of age 55 years with a 30-pack-year history. This would nearly double (87% overall) the number of people eligible for screening, and it would include more Black patients and women, who tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than their White male counterparts. The American College of Radiology estimates that the expanded screening criteria could save between 30,000 and 60,000 lives per year.¹²

CAVEATS

Screening criteria for upper age limit, years since smoking remain unchanged

For those patients who quit smoking, the guidelines apply only to those who have stopped smoking within the past 15 years. Furthermore, the benefit does not extend beyond age 80 or where other conditions reduce life expectancy. And, as noted earlier, modeling studies estimate that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Concerns about false-positives, ­radiation exposure may limit acceptance

Challenges would be based mostly on the need for greater, more detailed dialogue between physicians and patients at higher risk for lung cancer in a time-constrained environment. Also, LDCT may not be available in some areas, and patients and physicians may have concerns regarding repeated CT exposure. In addition, false-positive results increase patient stress and may adversely affect both patient and physician acceptance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old woman presents to your office for a well-woman exam. Her past medical history includes a 22-pack-year smoking history (she quit 5 years ago), well-controlled hypertension, and mild obesity. She has no family history of cancer, but she does have a family history of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Besides age- and risk-appropriate laboratory tests, cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and initial colon cancer screening, are there any other preventive services you would offer her?

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women, and it is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States—regardless of gender. The American Cancer Society estimates that 235,760 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer and 131,880 people will die of the disease in 2021.²

In the 2015 National Cancer Institute report on the economic costs of cancer, direct and indirect costs of lung cancer totaled $21.1 billion annually. Lost productivity from lung cancer added another $36.1 billion in annual costs.³ The economic costs increased to $23.8 billion in 2020, with no data on lost productivity.⁴

Smoking tobacco is by far the primary risk factor for lung cancer, and it is estimated to account for 90% of all lung cancer cases. Compared with nonsmokers, the relative risk of lung cancer is approximately 20 times higher for smokers.^5,6

Because the median age of lung cancer diagnosis is 70 years, increasing age is also considered a risk factor for lung cancer.^2,7

Although lung cancer has a relatively poor prognosis—with an average 5-year survival rate of 20.5%—early-stage lung cancer is more amenable to treatment and has a better prognosis (as is true with many cancers).¹

LDCT has a high sensitivity, as well as a reasonable specificity, for lung cancer detection. There is demonstrated benefit in screening patients who are at high risk for lung cancer.^8-11 In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual lung cancer screening (B recommendation) with LDCT in adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30-pack-year smoking history, and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Broader eligibility for screening supports mortality benefit

This is an update to the 2013 clinical practice guideline on lung cancer screening. The USPSTF used 2 methods to provide the best possible evidence for the recommendations. The first method was a systematic review of the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with LDCT, evaluating both the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening. The systematic review examined various subgroups, the number and/or frequency of LDCT scans, and various approaches to reducing false-positive results. In addition to the systematic review, they used collaborative modeling studies to determine the optimal age for beginning and ending screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of various screening strategies. These modeling studies complemented the evidence review.

This updated guideline nearly doubles eligibility for lung cancer screening using low-dose CT scanning.

The review included 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus the modeling studies. Only the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; N = 53,454) and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial (N = 15,792) had adequate power to detect a mortality benefit from screening (NLST: relative risk reduction = 16%; 95% CI, 5%-25%; NELSON: incidence rate ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) compared with no screening.

Screening intervals, from the NLST and NELSON trials as well as the modeling studies, revealed the greatest benefit from annual screening (statistics not shared). Evidence also showed that screening those with lighter smoking histories (< 30 pack-years) and at an earlier age (age 50) provided increased mortality benefit. No evidence was found for a benefit of screening past 80 years of age. The modeling studies concluded that the 2013 USPSTF screening program, using a starting age of 55 and a 30-pack-year smoking history, would reduce mortality by 9.8%, but by changing to a starting age of 50, a 20-pack-year smoking history, and annual screening, the mortality benefit was increased to 13%.^1,11

Comparison with computer-based risk prediction models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) revealed insufficient evidence at this time to show that prediction model–based screening offered any benefit beyond that of the age and smoking history risk factor model.

The incidence of false-positive results was > 25% in the NLST at baseline and at 1 year. Use of a classification system such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) could reduce that from 26.6% to 12.8%.² Another potential harm from LDCT screening is radiation exposure. Evidence from several RCTs and cohort studies showed the exposure from 1 LDCT scan to be 0.65 to 2.36 mSv, whereas the annual background radiation in the United States is 2.4 mSv. The modeling studies estimated that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

Expanded age range, reduced pack-year history

Annual lung cancer screening is now recommended to begin for patients at age 50 years with a 20-pack-year history instead of age 55 years with a 30-pack-year history. This would nearly double (87% overall) the number of people eligible for screening, and it would include more Black patients and women, who tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than their White male counterparts. The American College of Radiology estimates that the expanded screening criteria could save between 30,000 and 60,000 lives per year.¹²

CAVEATS

Screening criteria for upper age limit, years since smoking remain unchanged

For those patients who quit smoking, the guidelines apply only to those who have stopped smoking within the past 15 years. Furthermore, the benefit does not extend beyond age 80 or where other conditions reduce life expectancy. And, as noted earlier, modeling studies estimate that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Concerns about false-positives, ­radiation exposure may limit acceptance

Challenges would be based mostly on the need for greater, more detailed dialogue between physicians and patients at higher risk for lung cancer in a time-constrained environment. Also, LDCT may not be available in some areas, and patients and physicians may have concerns regarding repeated CT exposure. In addition, false-positive results increase patient stress and may adversely affect both patient and physician acceptance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 50-year-old woman presents to your office for a well-woman exam. Her past medical history includes a 22-pack-year smoking history (she quit 5 years ago), well-controlled hypertension, and mild obesity. She has no family history of cancer, but she does have a family history of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Besides age- and risk-appropriate laboratory tests, cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and initial colon cancer screening, are there any other preventive services you would offer her?

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women, and it is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States—regardless of gender. The American Cancer Society estimates that 235,760 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer and 131,880 people will die of the disease in 2021.²

In the 2015 National Cancer Institute report on the economic costs of cancer, direct and indirect costs of lung cancer totaled $21.1 billion annually. Lost productivity from lung cancer added another $36.1 billion in annual costs.³ The economic costs increased to $23.8 billion in 2020, with no data on lost productivity.⁴

Smoking tobacco is by far the primary risk factor for lung cancer, and it is estimated to account for 90% of all lung cancer cases. Compared with nonsmokers, the relative risk of lung cancer is approximately 20 times higher for smokers.^5,6

Because the median age of lung cancer diagnosis is 70 years, increasing age is also considered a risk factor for lung cancer.^2,7

Although lung cancer has a relatively poor prognosis—with an average 5-year survival rate of 20.5%—early-stage lung cancer is more amenable to treatment and has a better prognosis (as is true with many cancers).¹

LDCT has a high sensitivity, as well as a reasonable specificity, for lung cancer detection. There is demonstrated benefit in screening patients who are at high risk for lung cancer.^8-11 In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual lung cancer screening (B recommendation) with LDCT in adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30-pack-year smoking history, and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Broader eligibility for screening supports mortality benefit

This is an update to the 2013 clinical practice guideline on lung cancer screening. The USPSTF used 2 methods to provide the best possible evidence for the recommendations. The first method was a systematic review of the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with LDCT, evaluating both the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening. The systematic review examined various subgroups, the number and/or frequency of LDCT scans, and various approaches to reducing false-positive results. In addition to the systematic review, they used collaborative modeling studies to determine the optimal age for beginning and ending screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of various screening strategies. These modeling studies complemented the evidence review.

This updated guideline nearly doubles eligibility for lung cancer screening using low-dose CT scanning.

The review included 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus the modeling studies. Only the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; N = 53,454) and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial (N = 15,792) had adequate power to detect a mortality benefit from screening (NLST: relative risk reduction = 16%; 95% CI, 5%-25%; NELSON: incidence rate ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) compared with no screening.

Screening intervals, from the NLST and NELSON trials as well as the modeling studies, revealed the greatest benefit from annual screening (statistics not shared). Evidence also showed that screening those with lighter smoking histories (< 30 pack-years) and at an earlier age (age 50) provided increased mortality benefit. No evidence was found for a benefit of screening past 80 years of age. The modeling studies concluded that the 2013 USPSTF screening program, using a starting age of 55 and a 30-pack-year smoking history, would reduce mortality by 9.8%, but by changing to a starting age of 50, a 20-pack-year smoking history, and annual screening, the mortality benefit was increased to 13%.^1,11

Comparison with computer-based risk prediction models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) revealed insufficient evidence at this time to show that prediction model–based screening offered any benefit beyond that of the age and smoking history risk factor model.

The incidence of false-positive results was > 25% in the NLST at baseline and at 1 year. Use of a classification system such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) could reduce that from 26.6% to 12.8%.² Another potential harm from LDCT screening is radiation exposure. Evidence from several RCTs and cohort studies showed the exposure from 1 LDCT scan to be 0.65 to 2.36 mSv, whereas the annual background radiation in the United States is 2.4 mSv. The modeling studies estimated that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

Expanded age range, reduced pack-year history

Annual lung cancer screening is now recommended to begin for patients at age 50 years with a 20-pack-year history instead of age 55 years with a 30-pack-year history. This would nearly double (87% overall) the number of people eligible for screening, and it would include more Black patients and women, who tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than their White male counterparts. The American College of Radiology estimates that the expanded screening criteria could save between 30,000 and 60,000 lives per year.¹²

CAVEATS

Screening criteria for upper age limit, years since smoking remain unchanged

For those patients who quit smoking, the guidelines apply only to those who have stopped smoking within the past 15 years. Furthermore, the benefit does not extend beyond age 80 or where other conditions reduce life expectancy. And, as noted earlier, modeling studies estimate that there would be 1 death caused by LDCT for every 18.5 cancer deaths avoided.^1,11

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Concerns about false-positives, ­radiation exposure may limit acceptance

Challenges would be based mostly on the need for greater, more detailed dialogue between physicians and patients at higher risk for lung cancer in a time-constrained environment. Also, LDCT may not be available in some areas, and patients and physicians may have concerns regarding repeated CT exposure. In addition, false-positive results increase patient stress and may adversely affect both patient and physician acceptance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

THE CASE

Joe, an 18-year-old, has been your patient for many years and has an uncomplicated medical history. He presents for his preparticipation sports examination for the upcoming high school baseball season. Joe’s mother, who arrives at the office with him, tells you she’s worried because she found an e-cigarette in his backpack last week. Joe says that many of the kids at his school vape and he tried it a while back and now vapes “a lot.”

After talking further with Joe, you realize that he is vaping every day, using a 5% nicotine pod. Based on previous consults with the behavioral health counselor in your clinic, you know that this level of vaping is about the same as smoking 1 pack of cigarettes per day in terms of nicotine exposure. Joe states that he often vapes in the bathroom at school because he cannot concentrate in class if he doesn’t vape. He also reports that he had previously used 1 pod per week but had recently started vaping more to help with his cravings.

You assess his withdrawal symptoms and learn that he feels on edge when he is not able to vape and that he vapes heavily before going into school because he knows he will not be able to vape again until his third passing period.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; also called “vapes”) are electronic nicotine delivery systems that heat and aerosolize e-liquid or “e-juice” that is inhaled by the user. The e-liquid is made up primarily of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavorings, and often includes nicotine. Nicotine levels in e-cigarettes can range from 0 mg/mL to 60 mg/mL (regular cigarettes contain ~12 mg of nicotine). The nicotine level of the pod available from e-cigarette company JUUL (50 mg/mL e-liquid) is equivalent to about 1 pack of cigarettes.¹ E-cigarette devices are relatively affordable; popular brands cost $10 to $20, while the replacement pods or e-liquid are typically about $4 each.

The e-cigarette market is quickly evolving and diversifying. Originally, e-cigarettes looked similar to cigarettes (cig-a-likes) but did not efficiently deliver nicotine to the user.² E-cigarettes have evolved and some now deliver cigarette-like levels of nicotine to the user.^3,4 Youth and young adults primarily use pod-mod e-cigarettes, which have a sleek design and produce less vapor than older e-cigarettes, making them easier to conceal. They can look like a USB flash-drive or have a teardrop shape. Pod-mod e-cigarettes dominate the current market, led by companies such as JUUL, NJOY, and Vuse.⁵

E-cigarette use is proliferating in the United States, particularly among young people and facilitated by the introduction of pod-based e-cigarettes in appealing flavors.^6,7 While rates of current e-cigarette use by US adults is around 5.5%,⁸ recent data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.⁹

Continue to: A double-edged sword

A double-edged sword. E-cigarettes are less harmful than traditional cigarettes in the short term and likely benefit adult smokers who completely substitute e-cigarettes for their tobacco cigarettes.¹⁰ In randomized trials of adult smokers, e-cigarette use resulted in moderate combustible-cigarette cessation rates that rival or exceed rates achieved with traditional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).^11-13 However, most e-cigarettes contain addictive nicotine, can facilitate transitions to more harmful forms of tobacco use,^10,14,15 and have unknown long-term health effects. Therefore, youth, young adults, and those who are otherwise tobacco naïve should not initiate e-cigarette use.

Moreover, cases of e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI)—a disease linked to vaping that causes cough, fever, shortness of breath, and death—were first identified in August 2019 and peaked in September 2019 before new cases decreased dramatically through January 2020.¹⁶ Since the initial cases of EVALI arose, product testing has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and vitamin E acetate are the main ingredients linked to EVALI cases.¹⁷ For this reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others strongly recommend against use of THC-containing e-cigarettes.¹⁸

Data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.

Given the high rates of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults and its potential health harms, it is critical to inquire about e-cigarette use at primary care visits, and, as appropriate, to assess frequency and quantity of use. Patients who require intervention will be more likely to succeed in quitting if they are connected with behavioral health counseling and prescribed medication. This article offers evidence-based guidance to assess and advise teens and young adults regarding the potential health impact of e-cigarettes.

A NEW ICD-10-CM CODE AND A BRIEF ASSESSMENT TOOL

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5)¹⁹ and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM),²⁰ a tobacco use disorder is a problematic pattern of use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. Associated features and behavioral markers of frequency and quantity include use within 30 minutes of waking, daily use, and increasing use. However, with youth, consider intervention for use of any nicotine or tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, regardless of whether it meets the threshold for diagnosis.²¹

The new code. Interestingly, prior to the April 2020 modification to ICD-10-CM codes, there was no code for e-cigarette use–related problems. However, the newly released code (U07.0) allows for billing for these services and serves to recognize the importance of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of e-cigarette use.

Continue to: As with other tobacco use...

As with other tobacco use, assess e-­cigarette use patterns by asking questions about the frequency, duration, and quantity of use. Additionally, determine the level of nicotine in the e-liquid (discussed earlier) and evaluate whether the individual displays signs of physiologic dependence (eg, failed attempts to reduce or quit e-cigarette use, increased use, nicotine withdrawal symptoms).

A useful assessment tool. While e-cigarette use is not often included on current substance use screening measures, the above questions can be added to the end of measures such as the CRAFFT (Car-Relax-Alone-Forget-Family and Friends-Trouble) test.²² Additionally, if an adolescent reports vaping, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends using a brief screening tool such as the Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) to establish his or her level of dependence (TABLE 1).²³

The HONC is ideal for a primary care setting because it is brief and has a high level of sensitivity, minimizing false-negative reports²⁴; a patient’s acknowledgement of any item indicates a loss of autonomy over nicotine. Establishing the level of nicotine dependence is particularly pertinent when making decisions regarding the course of treatment and whether to prescribe NRT (eg, nicotine patch, gum, lozenge). Alternatively, you can quickly assess level of dependence by determining the time to first e-cigarette use in the morning. Tobacco guidelines suggest that if time to first use is > 30 minutes, the individual is “moderately dependent”; if time to first use is < 30 minutes after waking, the individual is “severely dependent.”²⁵

COMBINATION TREATMENT IS MOST SUCCESSFUL

Studies have shown that the most effective treatment for tobacco cessation is pairing behavioral treatment with combination NRT (eg, nicotine gum + patch).^25,26 The literature on e-cigarette cessation remains in its infancy, but techniques from traditional smoking cessation can be applied because the behaviors differ only in their mode of nicotine delivery.

Behavioral treatment. There are several options for behavioral treatment for tobacco cessation—and thus, e-cigarette cessation. The first step will depend on the patient’s level of motivation. If the patient is not yet ready to quit, consider using brief motivational interviewing. Once the patient is willing to engage in treatment, options include setting a mutually agreed upon quit date or planning for a reduction in the frequency and duration of vaping.

Continue to: Referrals to the Quitline...

Referrals to the Quitline (800-QUIT-NOW) have long been standard practice and can be used to extend primary care treatment.²⁵ Studies show that it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at their primary care appointment²⁷ than asking them to call after the visit.^28,29 We suggest providing direct assistance in the office to patients as they initiate treatment with the Quitline.

Finally, if the level of dependence is severe or the patient is not motivated to quit, connect them with a behavioral health provider in your clinic or with an outside therapist skilled in cognitive behavioral techniques related to tobacco cessation. Discuss with the patient that quitting nicotine use is difficult for many people and that the best option for success is the combination of counseling and medication.²⁵

Nicotine replacement therapy for e-cigarette use. While over-the-counter NRT (nicotine gum, patches, lozenges) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for sale to adults ≥ 18 years, the AAP issued guidance on prescribing NRT for those < 18 years who use e-cigarettes.³⁰ While the AAP does not suggest a lower age limit for prescribing NRT, national data show that < 6% of middle schoolers report e-cigarette use and that e-cigarette use does not become common (~20% current use) until high school.³¹ It is therefore unlikely that a child < 14 years would require pharmacotherapy. On their fact sheet, the AAP includes the following guidance:

“Patients who are motivated to quit should use as much safe, FDA-approved NRT as needed to avoid smoking or vaping. When assessing a patient’s current level of nicotine use, it may be helpful to understand that using one JUUL pod per day is equivalent to one pack of cigarettes per day …. Pediatricians and other healthcare providers should work with each patient to determine a starting dosage of NRT that is most likely to help them quit successfully. Dosing is based on the patient’s level of nicotine dependence, which can be measured using a screening tool” (TABLE 1²³).³²

The AAP NRT dosing guidelines can be found at downloads.aap.org/RCE/NRT_and_Adolescents_Pediatrician_Guidance_factsheet.pdf.³² Of note, the dosing guidelines for adolescents are the same as those for adults and are based on level of use and dependence. Moreover, the clinician and patient should work together to choose the initial dose and the plan for weaning NRT over time.

Continue to: THE CASE

Based on your conversation with Joe, you administer the HONC screening tool. He scores 9 out of 10, indicating significant loss of autonomy over nicotine. You consult with a behavioral health counselor, who believes that Joe would benefit from counseling and NRT. You discuss this treatment plan with Joe, who says he is ready to quit because he does not like feeling as if he depends on vaping. Your shared decision is to start the 21-mg patch and 4-mg gum with plans to step down from there.

Studies show it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at the office visit than asking them to call after the visit.

Joe agrees to set a quit date in the following week. The behavioral health counselor then meets with Joe and they develop a quit plan, which is shared with you so you can follow up at the next visit. Joe also agrees to talk with his parents, who are unaware of his level of use and dependence. Everyone agrees on the quit plan, and a follow-up visit is scheduled.

At the follow-up visit 1 month later, Joe and his parents report that he has quit vaping but is still using the patch and gum. You instruct Joe to reduce his NRT use to the 14-mg patch and 2-mg gum and to stop using them over the next 2 to 3 weeks. Everyone is in agreement with the treatment plan. You also re-administer the HONC screening tool and see that Joe’s score has reduced by 7 points to just 2 out of 10. You recommend that Joe continue to see the behavioral health counselor and follow up as needed. (A noted benefit of having a behavioral health counselor in your clinic is the opportunity for informal briefings on patient progress.^33,34)

Following each visit with Joe, you make sure to complete documentation on (1) tobacco/e-cigarette use assessment, (2) diagnoses, (3) discussion of benefits of quitting,(4) assessment of readiness to quit, (5) creation and support of a quit plan, and (6) connection with a behavioral health counselor and planned follow-up. (See TABLE 2³⁵ for details onbilling codes.) 

CORRESPONDENCE
Eleanor L. S. Leavens, PhD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 1008, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

THE CASE

Joe, an 18-year-old, has been your patient for many years and has an uncomplicated medical history. He presents for his preparticipation sports examination for the upcoming high school baseball season. Joe’s mother, who arrives at the office with him, tells you she’s worried because she found an e-cigarette in his backpack last week. Joe says that many of the kids at his school vape and he tried it a while back and now vapes “a lot.”

After talking further with Joe, you realize that he is vaping every day, using a 5% nicotine pod. Based on previous consults with the behavioral health counselor in your clinic, you know that this level of vaping is about the same as smoking 1 pack of cigarettes per day in terms of nicotine exposure. Joe states that he often vapes in the bathroom at school because he cannot concentrate in class if he doesn’t vape. He also reports that he had previously used 1 pod per week but had recently started vaping more to help with his cravings.

You assess his withdrawal symptoms and learn that he feels on edge when he is not able to vape and that he vapes heavily before going into school because he knows he will not be able to vape again until his third passing period.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; also called “vapes”) are electronic nicotine delivery systems that heat and aerosolize e-liquid or “e-juice” that is inhaled by the user. The e-liquid is made up primarily of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavorings, and often includes nicotine. Nicotine levels in e-cigarettes can range from 0 mg/mL to 60 mg/mL (regular cigarettes contain ~12 mg of nicotine). The nicotine level of the pod available from e-cigarette company JUUL (50 mg/mL e-liquid) is equivalent to about 1 pack of cigarettes.¹ E-cigarette devices are relatively affordable; popular brands cost $10 to $20, while the replacement pods or e-liquid are typically about $4 each.

The e-cigarette market is quickly evolving and diversifying. Originally, e-cigarettes looked similar to cigarettes (cig-a-likes) but did not efficiently deliver nicotine to the user.² E-cigarettes have evolved and some now deliver cigarette-like levels of nicotine to the user.^3,4 Youth and young adults primarily use pod-mod e-cigarettes, which have a sleek design and produce less vapor than older e-cigarettes, making them easier to conceal. They can look like a USB flash-drive or have a teardrop shape. Pod-mod e-cigarettes dominate the current market, led by companies such as JUUL, NJOY, and Vuse.⁵

E-cigarette use is proliferating in the United States, particularly among young people and facilitated by the introduction of pod-based e-cigarettes in appealing flavors.^6,7 While rates of current e-cigarette use by US adults is around 5.5%,⁸ recent data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.⁹

Continue to: A double-edged sword

A double-edged sword. E-cigarettes are less harmful than traditional cigarettes in the short term and likely benefit adult smokers who completely substitute e-cigarettes for their tobacco cigarettes.¹⁰ In randomized trials of adult smokers, e-cigarette use resulted in moderate combustible-cigarette cessation rates that rival or exceed rates achieved with traditional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).^11-13 However, most e-cigarettes contain addictive nicotine, can facilitate transitions to more harmful forms of tobacco use,^10,14,15 and have unknown long-term health effects. Therefore, youth, young adults, and those who are otherwise tobacco naïve should not initiate e-cigarette use.

Moreover, cases of e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI)—a disease linked to vaping that causes cough, fever, shortness of breath, and death—were first identified in August 2019 and peaked in September 2019 before new cases decreased dramatically through January 2020.¹⁶ Since the initial cases of EVALI arose, product testing has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and vitamin E acetate are the main ingredients linked to EVALI cases.¹⁷ For this reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others strongly recommend against use of THC-containing e-cigarettes.¹⁸

Data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.

Given the high rates of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults and its potential health harms, it is critical to inquire about e-cigarette use at primary care visits, and, as appropriate, to assess frequency and quantity of use. Patients who require intervention will be more likely to succeed in quitting if they are connected with behavioral health counseling and prescribed medication. This article offers evidence-based guidance to assess and advise teens and young adults regarding the potential health impact of e-cigarettes.

A NEW ICD-10-CM CODE AND A BRIEF ASSESSMENT TOOL

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5)¹⁹ and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM),²⁰ a tobacco use disorder is a problematic pattern of use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. Associated features and behavioral markers of frequency and quantity include use within 30 minutes of waking, daily use, and increasing use. However, with youth, consider intervention for use of any nicotine or tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, regardless of whether it meets the threshold for diagnosis.²¹

The new code. Interestingly, prior to the April 2020 modification to ICD-10-CM codes, there was no code for e-cigarette use–related problems. However, the newly released code (U07.0) allows for billing for these services and serves to recognize the importance of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of e-cigarette use.

Continue to: As with other tobacco use...

As with other tobacco use, assess e-­cigarette use patterns by asking questions about the frequency, duration, and quantity of use. Additionally, determine the level of nicotine in the e-liquid (discussed earlier) and evaluate whether the individual displays signs of physiologic dependence (eg, failed attempts to reduce or quit e-cigarette use, increased use, nicotine withdrawal symptoms).

A useful assessment tool. While e-cigarette use is not often included on current substance use screening measures, the above questions can be added to the end of measures such as the CRAFFT (Car-Relax-Alone-Forget-Family and Friends-Trouble) test.²² Additionally, if an adolescent reports vaping, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends using a brief screening tool such as the Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) to establish his or her level of dependence (TABLE 1).²³

The HONC is ideal for a primary care setting because it is brief and has a high level of sensitivity, minimizing false-negative reports²⁴; a patient’s acknowledgement of any item indicates a loss of autonomy over nicotine. Establishing the level of nicotine dependence is particularly pertinent when making decisions regarding the course of treatment and whether to prescribe NRT (eg, nicotine patch, gum, lozenge). Alternatively, you can quickly assess level of dependence by determining the time to first e-cigarette use in the morning. Tobacco guidelines suggest that if time to first use is > 30 minutes, the individual is “moderately dependent”; if time to first use is < 30 minutes after waking, the individual is “severely dependent.”²⁵

COMBINATION TREATMENT IS MOST SUCCESSFUL

Studies have shown that the most effective treatment for tobacco cessation is pairing behavioral treatment with combination NRT (eg, nicotine gum + patch).^25,26 The literature on e-cigarette cessation remains in its infancy, but techniques from traditional smoking cessation can be applied because the behaviors differ only in their mode of nicotine delivery.

Behavioral treatment. There are several options for behavioral treatment for tobacco cessation—and thus, e-cigarette cessation. The first step will depend on the patient’s level of motivation. If the patient is not yet ready to quit, consider using brief motivational interviewing. Once the patient is willing to engage in treatment, options include setting a mutually agreed upon quit date or planning for a reduction in the frequency and duration of vaping.

Continue to: Referrals to the Quitline...

Referrals to the Quitline (800-QUIT-NOW) have long been standard practice and can be used to extend primary care treatment.²⁵ Studies show that it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at their primary care appointment²⁷ than asking them to call after the visit.^28,29 We suggest providing direct assistance in the office to patients as they initiate treatment with the Quitline.

Finally, if the level of dependence is severe or the patient is not motivated to quit, connect them with a behavioral health provider in your clinic or with an outside therapist skilled in cognitive behavioral techniques related to tobacco cessation. Discuss with the patient that quitting nicotine use is difficult for many people and that the best option for success is the combination of counseling and medication.²⁵

Nicotine replacement therapy for e-cigarette use. While over-the-counter NRT (nicotine gum, patches, lozenges) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for sale to adults ≥ 18 years, the AAP issued guidance on prescribing NRT for those < 18 years who use e-cigarettes.³⁰ While the AAP does not suggest a lower age limit for prescribing NRT, national data show that < 6% of middle schoolers report e-cigarette use and that e-cigarette use does not become common (~20% current use) until high school.³¹ It is therefore unlikely that a child < 14 years would require pharmacotherapy. On their fact sheet, the AAP includes the following guidance:

“Patients who are motivated to quit should use as much safe, FDA-approved NRT as needed to avoid smoking or vaping. When assessing a patient’s current level of nicotine use, it may be helpful to understand that using one JUUL pod per day is equivalent to one pack of cigarettes per day …. Pediatricians and other healthcare providers should work with each patient to determine a starting dosage of NRT that is most likely to help them quit successfully. Dosing is based on the patient’s level of nicotine dependence, which can be measured using a screening tool” (TABLE 1²³).³²

The AAP NRT dosing guidelines can be found at downloads.aap.org/RCE/NRT_and_Adolescents_Pediatrician_Guidance_factsheet.pdf.³² Of note, the dosing guidelines for adolescents are the same as those for adults and are based on level of use and dependence. Moreover, the clinician and patient should work together to choose the initial dose and the plan for weaning NRT over time.

Continue to: THE CASE

Based on your conversation with Joe, you administer the HONC screening tool. He scores 9 out of 10, indicating significant loss of autonomy over nicotine. You consult with a behavioral health counselor, who believes that Joe would benefit from counseling and NRT. You discuss this treatment plan with Joe, who says he is ready to quit because he does not like feeling as if he depends on vaping. Your shared decision is to start the 21-mg patch and 4-mg gum with plans to step down from there.

Studies show it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at the office visit than asking them to call after the visit.

Joe agrees to set a quit date in the following week. The behavioral health counselor then meets with Joe and they develop a quit plan, which is shared with you so you can follow up at the next visit. Joe also agrees to talk with his parents, who are unaware of his level of use and dependence. Everyone agrees on the quit plan, and a follow-up visit is scheduled.

At the follow-up visit 1 month later, Joe and his parents report that he has quit vaping but is still using the patch and gum. You instruct Joe to reduce his NRT use to the 14-mg patch and 2-mg gum and to stop using them over the next 2 to 3 weeks. Everyone is in agreement with the treatment plan. You also re-administer the HONC screening tool and see that Joe’s score has reduced by 7 points to just 2 out of 10. You recommend that Joe continue to see the behavioral health counselor and follow up as needed. (A noted benefit of having a behavioral health counselor in your clinic is the opportunity for informal briefings on patient progress.^33,34)

Following each visit with Joe, you make sure to complete documentation on (1) tobacco/e-cigarette use assessment, (2) diagnoses, (3) discussion of benefits of quitting,(4) assessment of readiness to quit, (5) creation and support of a quit plan, and (6) connection with a behavioral health counselor and planned follow-up. (See TABLE 2³⁵ for details onbilling codes.) 

CORRESPONDENCE
Eleanor L. S. Leavens, PhD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 1008, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

THE CASE

Joe, an 18-year-old, has been your patient for many years and has an uncomplicated medical history. He presents for his preparticipation sports examination for the upcoming high school baseball season. Joe’s mother, who arrives at the office with him, tells you she’s worried because she found an e-cigarette in his backpack last week. Joe says that many of the kids at his school vape and he tried it a while back and now vapes “a lot.”

After talking further with Joe, you realize that he is vaping every day, using a 5% nicotine pod. Based on previous consults with the behavioral health counselor in your clinic, you know that this level of vaping is about the same as smoking 1 pack of cigarettes per day in terms of nicotine exposure. Joe states that he often vapes in the bathroom at school because he cannot concentrate in class if he doesn’t vape. He also reports that he had previously used 1 pod per week but had recently started vaping more to help with his cravings.

You assess his withdrawal symptoms and learn that he feels on edge when he is not able to vape and that he vapes heavily before going into school because he knows he will not be able to vape again until his third passing period.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; also called “vapes”) are electronic nicotine delivery systems that heat and aerosolize e-liquid or “e-juice” that is inhaled by the user. The e-liquid is made up primarily of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavorings, and often includes nicotine. Nicotine levels in e-cigarettes can range from 0 mg/mL to 60 mg/mL (regular cigarettes contain ~12 mg of nicotine). The nicotine level of the pod available from e-cigarette company JUUL (50 mg/mL e-liquid) is equivalent to about 1 pack of cigarettes.¹ E-cigarette devices are relatively affordable; popular brands cost $10 to $20, while the replacement pods or e-liquid are typically about $4 each.

The e-cigarette market is quickly evolving and diversifying. Originally, e-cigarettes looked similar to cigarettes (cig-a-likes) but did not efficiently deliver nicotine to the user.² E-cigarettes have evolved and some now deliver cigarette-like levels of nicotine to the user.^3,4 Youth and young adults primarily use pod-mod e-cigarettes, which have a sleek design and produce less vapor than older e-cigarettes, making them easier to conceal. They can look like a USB flash-drive or have a teardrop shape. Pod-mod e-cigarettes dominate the current market, led by companies such as JUUL, NJOY, and Vuse.⁵

E-cigarette use is proliferating in the United States, particularly among young people and facilitated by the introduction of pod-based e-cigarettes in appealing flavors.^6,7 While rates of current e-cigarette use by US adults is around 5.5%,⁸ recent data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.⁹

Continue to: A double-edged sword

A double-edged sword. E-cigarettes are less harmful than traditional cigarettes in the short term and likely benefit adult smokers who completely substitute e-cigarettes for their tobacco cigarettes.¹⁰ In randomized trials of adult smokers, e-cigarette use resulted in moderate combustible-cigarette cessation rates that rival or exceed rates achieved with traditional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).^11-13 However, most e-cigarettes contain addictive nicotine, can facilitate transitions to more harmful forms of tobacco use,^10,14,15 and have unknown long-term health effects. Therefore, youth, young adults, and those who are otherwise tobacco naïve should not initiate e-cigarette use.

Moreover, cases of e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI)—a disease linked to vaping that causes cough, fever, shortness of breath, and death—were first identified in August 2019 and peaked in September 2019 before new cases decreased dramatically through January 2020.¹⁶ Since the initial cases of EVALI arose, product testing has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and vitamin E acetate are the main ingredients linked to EVALI cases.¹⁷ For this reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others strongly recommend against use of THC-containing e-cigarettes.¹⁸

Data show that 32.7% of US high school students say they’ve used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days.

Given the high rates of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults and its potential health harms, it is critical to inquire about e-cigarette use at primary care visits, and, as appropriate, to assess frequency and quantity of use. Patients who require intervention will be more likely to succeed in quitting if they are connected with behavioral health counseling and prescribed medication. This article offers evidence-based guidance to assess and advise teens and young adults regarding the potential health impact of e-cigarettes.

A NEW ICD-10-CM CODE AND A BRIEF ASSESSMENT TOOL

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5)¹⁹ and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10-CM),²⁰ a tobacco use disorder is a problematic pattern of use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. Associated features and behavioral markers of frequency and quantity include use within 30 minutes of waking, daily use, and increasing use. However, with youth, consider intervention for use of any nicotine or tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, regardless of whether it meets the threshold for diagnosis.²¹

The new code. Interestingly, prior to the April 2020 modification to ICD-10-CM codes, there was no code for e-cigarette use–related problems. However, the newly released code (U07.0) allows for billing for these services and serves to recognize the importance of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of e-cigarette use.

Continue to: As with other tobacco use...

As with other tobacco use, assess e-­cigarette use patterns by asking questions about the frequency, duration, and quantity of use. Additionally, determine the level of nicotine in the e-liquid (discussed earlier) and evaluate whether the individual displays signs of physiologic dependence (eg, failed attempts to reduce or quit e-cigarette use, increased use, nicotine withdrawal symptoms).

A useful assessment tool. While e-cigarette use is not often included on current substance use screening measures, the above questions can be added to the end of measures such as the CRAFFT (Car-Relax-Alone-Forget-Family and Friends-Trouble) test.²² Additionally, if an adolescent reports vaping, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends using a brief screening tool such as the Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) to establish his or her level of dependence (TABLE 1).²³

The HONC is ideal for a primary care setting because it is brief and has a high level of sensitivity, minimizing false-negative reports²⁴; a patient’s acknowledgement of any item indicates a loss of autonomy over nicotine. Establishing the level of nicotine dependence is particularly pertinent when making decisions regarding the course of treatment and whether to prescribe NRT (eg, nicotine patch, gum, lozenge). Alternatively, you can quickly assess level of dependence by determining the time to first e-cigarette use in the morning. Tobacco guidelines suggest that if time to first use is > 30 minutes, the individual is “moderately dependent”; if time to first use is < 30 minutes after waking, the individual is “severely dependent.”²⁵

COMBINATION TREATMENT IS MOST SUCCESSFUL

Studies have shown that the most effective treatment for tobacco cessation is pairing behavioral treatment with combination NRT (eg, nicotine gum + patch).^25,26 The literature on e-cigarette cessation remains in its infancy, but techniques from traditional smoking cessation can be applied because the behaviors differ only in their mode of nicotine delivery.

Behavioral treatment. There are several options for behavioral treatment for tobacco cessation—and thus, e-cigarette cessation. The first step will depend on the patient’s level of motivation. If the patient is not yet ready to quit, consider using brief motivational interviewing. Once the patient is willing to engage in treatment, options include setting a mutually agreed upon quit date or planning for a reduction in the frequency and duration of vaping.

Continue to: Referrals to the Quitline...

Referrals to the Quitline (800-QUIT-NOW) have long been standard practice and can be used to extend primary care treatment.²⁵ Studies show that it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at their primary care appointment²⁷ than asking them to call after the visit.^28,29 We suggest providing direct assistance in the office to patients as they initiate treatment with the Quitline.

Finally, if the level of dependence is severe or the patient is not motivated to quit, connect them with a behavioral health provider in your clinic or with an outside therapist skilled in cognitive behavioral techniques related to tobacco cessation. Discuss with the patient that quitting nicotine use is difficult for many people and that the best option for success is the combination of counseling and medication.²⁵

Nicotine replacement therapy for e-cigarette use. While over-the-counter NRT (nicotine gum, patches, lozenges) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for sale to adults ≥ 18 years, the AAP issued guidance on prescribing NRT for those < 18 years who use e-cigarettes.³⁰ While the AAP does not suggest a lower age limit for prescribing NRT, national data show that < 6% of middle schoolers report e-cigarette use and that e-cigarette use does not become common (~20% current use) until high school.³¹ It is therefore unlikely that a child < 14 years would require pharmacotherapy. On their fact sheet, the AAP includes the following guidance:

“Patients who are motivated to quit should use as much safe, FDA-approved NRT as needed to avoid smoking or vaping. When assessing a patient’s current level of nicotine use, it may be helpful to understand that using one JUUL pod per day is equivalent to one pack of cigarettes per day …. Pediatricians and other healthcare providers should work with each patient to determine a starting dosage of NRT that is most likely to help them quit successfully. Dosing is based on the patient’s level of nicotine dependence, which can be measured using a screening tool” (TABLE 1²³).³²

The AAP NRT dosing guidelines can be found at downloads.aap.org/RCE/NRT_and_Adolescents_Pediatrician_Guidance_factsheet.pdf.³² Of note, the dosing guidelines for adolescents are the same as those for adults and are based on level of use and dependence. Moreover, the clinician and patient should work together to choose the initial dose and the plan for weaning NRT over time.

Continue to: THE CASE

Based on your conversation with Joe, you administer the HONC screening tool. He scores 9 out of 10, indicating significant loss of autonomy over nicotine. You consult with a behavioral health counselor, who believes that Joe would benefit from counseling and NRT. You discuss this treatment plan with Joe, who says he is ready to quit because he does not like feeling as if he depends on vaping. Your shared decision is to start the 21-mg patch and 4-mg gum with plans to step down from there.

Studies show it is more effective to connect patients directly to the Quitline at the office visit than asking them to call after the visit.

Joe agrees to set a quit date in the following week. The behavioral health counselor then meets with Joe and they develop a quit plan, which is shared with you so you can follow up at the next visit. Joe also agrees to talk with his parents, who are unaware of his level of use and dependence. Everyone agrees on the quit plan, and a follow-up visit is scheduled.

At the follow-up visit 1 month later, Joe and his parents report that he has quit vaping but is still using the patch and gum. You instruct Joe to reduce his NRT use to the 14-mg patch and 2-mg gum and to stop using them over the next 2 to 3 weeks. Everyone is in agreement with the treatment plan. You also re-administer the HONC screening tool and see that Joe’s score has reduced by 7 points to just 2 out of 10. You recommend that Joe continue to see the behavioral health counselor and follow up as needed. (A noted benefit of having a behavioral health counselor in your clinic is the opportunity for informal briefings on patient progress.^33,34)

Following each visit with Joe, you make sure to complete documentation on (1) tobacco/e-cigarette use assessment, (2) diagnoses, (3) discussion of benefits of quitting,(4) assessment of readiness to quit, (5) creation and support of a quit plan, and (6) connection with a behavioral health counselor and planned follow-up. (See TABLE 2³⁵ for details onbilling codes.) 

CORRESPONDENCE
Eleanor L. S. Leavens, PhD, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 1008, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, using cutoff values other than 110 beats per minute might improve the prognostic value of heart rate at admission, a recent observational study suggests.

Courtesy of Mercy Medical Center

For identifying low-risk patients, a cutoff of 80 bpm increased the sensitivity of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) from about 94% to nearly 99% among nonhypotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), according to results of the large, registry-based study.

Similarly, using a 140-bpm cutoff increased the specificity of the Bova score for identifying intermediate-high–risk patients from about 93% to 98% in the study, which was recently published in the journal CHEST.

“Although standard dichotomization of HR [i.e., HR less than 110 vs. greater than 110 bpm] may be useful for guideline recommendations, our results will allow for more accuracy regarding clinical decision-making,” wrote lead author Ana Jaureguízar, MD, of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, on behalf of the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) investigators.
 

Intuitive findings inform future research

These observational findings are intuitive and do at least have the potential to inform the design of future randomized clinical trials, according to Albert J. Polito, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary medicine and medical director for the lung center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.

“In medicine, there is a spectrum of risk,” Dr. Polito said in an interview. “While we love our cutoffs, which in this case has traditionally always been that 110 beats per minute for heart rate, it makes sense that there would be some range of risks of bad outcomes.”

Building on the observations of the present study, subsequent prospective randomized studies could potentially aim to determine, for example, when thrombolytic therapy should be considered in nonhypotensive patients with acute PE and higher heart rates.

“It would not be easy to design, but it’s a straightforward question to ask whether patients with the highest heart rates are the ones who potentially might benefit the most from thrombolytic therapy,” Dr. Polito said.
 

Value of alternative HR cutoffs

Heart rate is a simple and easily available vital sign that is clearly linked to prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism, authors of the RIETE registry study say in their report. Accordingly, a heart rate threshold of 110 bpm has made its way into scoring systems that seek to identify low-risk patients, such as the sPESI, and those focused on identifying higher-risk patients, such as the Bova score.

However, it has not been clear whether alternative HR cutoffs would improve upon the 110-bpm threshold, they added. At the low-risk end, more accurate scoring systems could optimize the selection of patients for home treatment, while at the intermediate-high–risk end, they could better select patients for close monitoring or advanced PE treatments.
 

Better granularity on heart rate risks?

To better define the prognostic value of different heart rate thresholds, investigators analyzed data from RIETE, a large, ongoing, multinational prospective registry including patients with objectively confirmed acute venous thromboembolism.

For 44,331 consecutive nonhypotensive symptomatic PEs, the overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 5.1%, and the 30-day PE-related mortality was 1.9%, the authors report.

Significantly poorer outcomes were seen in patients with higher heart rates as compared to patients in the 80-99 bpm range, they also found. As compared to that reference range, odds ratios for 30-day all-cause death ranged from 1.5 for heart rates of 100-109, up to 2.4 for those with heart rates of 140 bpm or greater.

Likewise, patients with higher heart rates had a 1.7- to 2.4-fold greater risk of 30-day PE-related death as compared to the 80- to 99-bpm reference range, while patients with lower heart rates had lesser risk, the data published in CHEST show.
 

Toward refinement of prognostic scoring

Next, investigators sought to refine the prognostic scoring systems for low-risk PE (sPESI) and intermediate-high–risk PE (Bova).

For sPESI, they found that dropping the cutoff value from 110 to 100 bpm increased the sensitivity of the score from 93.4% to 95.3%. Going down even further to 80 bpm increased sensitivity to 98.8%, according to the report.

By going down from 110 to 80 bpm, the proportion of patients defined as low-risk dropped from 35% to 12%, according to the investigators.

For the Bova score, increasing the cutoff value from 110 to 120 bpm likewise increased specificity from 93.2% to 95%, while going up even further to 140 bpm increased specificity to 98.0%, the report shows.

In sensitivity analyses, the findings were not impacted by excluding younger patients, those who received reperfusion therapies, or those with atrial fibrillation, according to the study findings.
 

Potential implications for clinical practice

Taken together, these findings could serve as a resource to inform discussions regarding PE management that include whether home therapy or use of thrombolytic therapy is appropriate, investigators said in their report.

“For instance, among low-risk sPESI patients, those with borderline tachycardia [i.e., a heart rate between 100-109 bpm] might benefit from initial hospital observation for trending,” they wrote.

Dr. Jaureguízar reported no disclosures. One coinvestigator reported funding support from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Development Regional Fund (ERDF). One coinvestigator reported consulting in litigation involving two models of inferior vena cava filters.

Dr. Polito reported no disclosures.

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.