Pulmonology

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.

Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.

Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
 

What studies show

Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.

In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.

Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.

In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression. 

Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.

In the post–acute COVID clinic

“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.

With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.

For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.

COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.

From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.

Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.

Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.

Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
 

What studies show

Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.

In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.

Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.

In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression. 

Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.

In the post–acute COVID clinic

“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.

With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.

For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.

COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.

From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.

Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.

Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.

Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
 

What studies show

Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.

In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.

Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.

In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression. 

Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.

In the post–acute COVID clinic

“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.

With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.

For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.

COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.

From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.

Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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