Pulmonology

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years. This new indication expanded that age group to include children.

The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.

“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release. 

Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.

Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.

Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).

The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.

In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.

Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years. This new indication expanded that age group to include children.

The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.

“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release. 

Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.

Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.

Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).

The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.

In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.

Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years. This new indication expanded that age group to include children.

The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.

“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release. 

Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.

Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.

Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).

The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.

In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.

Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”

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

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disease of unclear etiology that primarily affects the lungs. It can occur at any age but usually develops before the age of 50 years, with an initial peak incidence at 20 to 29 years and a second peak incidence after 50 years of age, especially among women in Scandinavia and Japan.¹ Sarcoidosis affects men and women of all racial and ethnic groups throughout the world, but differences based on race, sex, and geography are noted.¹

The highest rates are reported in northern European and African-American individuals, particularly in women.^1,2 The adjusted annual incidence of sarcoidosis among African Americans is approximately 3 times that among White Americans³ and is more likely to be chronic and fatal in African Americans.³ The disease can be familial with a possible recessive inheritance mode with incomplete penetrance.⁴ Risk of sarcoidosis in monozygotic twins appears to be 80 times greater than that in the general population, which supports genetic factors accounting for two-thirds of disease susceptibility.⁵

Likely factors in the development of sarcoidosis

The exact cause of sarcoidosis is unknown, but we have insights into its pathogenesis and potential triggers.^1,6-9 Genes involved are being identified: class I and II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules are most consistently associated with risk of sarcoidosis. Environmental exposures can activate the innate immune system and precondition a susceptible individual to react to potential causative antigens in a highly polarized, antigen-specific Th1 immune response. The epithelioid granulomatous response involves local proinflammatory cytokine production and enhanced T-cell immunity at sites of inflammation.¹⁰ Granulomas generally form to confine pathogens, restrict inflammation, and protect surrounding tissue.^11-13

Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion; one must rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other disorders that cause granulomatous inflammation.

ACCESS (A Case Control Etiologic Study of Sarcoidosis) identified several environmental exposures such as chemicals used in the agriculture industry, mold or mildew, and musty odors at work.¹⁴ Tobacco use was not associated with sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Recent studies have shown positive associations with service in the US Navy,¹⁵ metal working,¹⁶ firefighting,¹⁷ the handling of building supplies,¹⁸ and onsite exposure while assisting in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center disaster.¹⁹ Other data support the likelihood that specific environmental exposures associated with microbe-rich environments modestly increase the risk of sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Mycobacterial and propionibacterial DNA and RNA are potentially associated with sarcoidosis.²⁰

Clinical manifestations are nonspecific

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis can be difficult and delayed due to diverse organ involvement and nonspecific presentations. TABLE 1^21-31 shows the diverse manifestations in a patient with suspected sarcoidosis. Around 50% of the patients are asymptomatic.^23,24 Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion, starting with a detailed history to rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other possible disorders (TABLE 2).²²

Diagnostic work-up

The primary objective of a diagnostic evaluation in most suspected cases of sarcoidosis is to corroborate the clinical and radiologic features with pathologic evidence of non-necrotizing granulomas and to exclude other causes of granulomatous inflammation.²²

Radiologic studies

Chest x-ray (CXR) provides diagnostic and prognostic information in the evaluation of sarcoidosis using the Scadding classification system (FIGURE 1).^21,25,32,33 Interobserver variability, especially between stages II and III and III and IV is the major limitation of this system.³² At presentation, radiographs are abnormal in approximately 90% of patients.³⁴ Lymphadenopathy is the most common radiographic abnormality, occurring in more than two-thirds of cases, and pulmonary opacities (nodules and reticulation) with a middle to upper lobe predilection are present in 20% to 50% of patients.^1,31,35 The nodules vary in size and can coalesce and cause alveolar collapse, thus producing consolidation.³⁶ Linear opacities radiating laterally from the hilum into the middle and upper zones are characteristic in fibrotic disease.

Continue to: High-resoluton computed tomography

High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Micronodules in a perilymphatic distribution with upper lobe predominance combined with subcarinal and symmetrical hilar lymph node enlargement is practically diagnostic of sarcoidosis in the right clinical context. TABLE 3^21,23,25,32 and FIGURE 2^21,23,25,32 summarize the common CT chest findings of sarcoidosis.

Advanced imaging such as (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used in specialized settings for advanced pulmonary, cardiac, or neurosarcoidosis.

Tissue biopsy

Skin lesions (other than erythema nodosum), eye lesions, and peripheral lymph nodes are considered the safest extrapulmonary locations for biopsy.^21,25 If pulmonary infiltrates or lymphadenopathy are present, or if extrapulmonary biopsy sites are not available, then flexible bronchoscopy with biopsy is the mainstay for tissue sampling.²⁵

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial biopsy (EBB), and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) are invaluable modalities that have reduced the need for open lung biopsy. BAL in sarcoidosis can show lymphocytosis > 15% (nonspecific) and a CD4:CD8 lymphocyte ratio > 3.5 (specificity > 90%).^21,22 TBB is more sensitive than EBB; however, sensitivity overall is heightened when both of them are combined. The advent of EBUS has increased the safety and efficiency of needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph nodes. Diagnostic yield of EBUS (~80%) is superior to that with TBB and EBB (~50%), especially in stage I and II sarcoidosis.³⁷ The combination of EBUS with TBB improves the diagnostic yield to ~90%.³⁷

The decision to obtain biopsy samples hinges on the nature of clinical and radiologic findings (FIGURE 3).^22,25,26

Continue to: Laboratory studies

Multiple abnormalities may be seen in sarcoidosis, and specific lab tests may help support a diagnosis of sarcoidosis or detect organ-specific disease activity (TABLE 4).^22,23,25,38 However, no consistently accurate biomarkers exist for use in clinical practice. An angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level greater than 2 times the upper limit of normal may be helpful; however, sensitivity remains low, and genetic polymorphisms can influence the ACE level.²⁵ Biomarkers sometimes used to assess disease activity are serum interleukin-2 receptor, neopterin, chitotriosidase, lysozyme, KL-6 glycoprotein, and amyloid A.²¹

Additional tests to assess specific features or organ involvement

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is reviewed in detail below under “pulmonary sarcoidosis.”

Electrocardiogram (EKG)/transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). EKG abnormalities—conduction disturbances, arrhythmias, or nonspecific ST segment and T-wave changes—are the most common nonspecific findings.³⁰ TTE findings are also nonspecific but have value in assessing cardiac chamber size and function and myocardial involvement. TTE is indeed the most common screening modality for sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension (SAPH), which is definitively diagnosed by right heart catheterization (RHC). Further evaluation for cardiac sarcoidosis can be done with cardiac MRI or fluorodeoxyglucose PET in specialized settings.

Lumbar puncture (LP) may reveal lymphocytic infiltration in suspected neurosarcoidosis, but the finding is nonspecific and can reflect infection or malignancy. Oligoclonal bands may also be seen in about one-third of neurosarcoidosis cases, and it is imperative to rule out multiple sclerosis.²⁸

Pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pulmonary sarcoidosis accounts for most of the morbidity, mortality, and health care use associated with sarcoidosis.^39,40

Continue to: Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Sarcoidosis is characterized by coalescing, tightly clustered, nonnecrotizing granulomas in the lung (FIGURE 4), most often located along the lymphatic routes of the pleura, interlobular septa, and bronchovascular bundles.⁴¹ Granulomas contain epithelioid cells or multinucleated giant cells surrounded by a chronic lymphocytic infiltrate. Typically, intracytoplasmic inclusions, such as Schaumann bodies, asteroid bodies, and blue bodies of calcium oxalates are noted within giant cells.

In chronic disease, lymphocytic infiltrate vanishes and granulomas tend to become increasingly fibrotic and enlarge to form hyalinized nodules rich with densely eosinophilic collagen. In 10% to 30% of cases, the lungs undergo progressive fibrosis.⁴⁰ Nonresolving inflammation appears to be the major cause of fibrosis and the peribronchovascular localization leading to marked bronchial distortion.

Clinical features, monitoring, and outcomes

Pulmonary involvement occurs in most patients with sarcoidosis, and subclinical pulmonary disease is generally present, even when extrathoracic manifestations predominate.²³ Dry cough, dyspnea, and chest discomfort are the most common symptoms. Chest auscultation is usually unremarkable. Wheezing is more common in those with fibrosis and is attributed to airway-centric fibrosis.⁴² There is often a substantial delay between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of pulmonary sarcoidosis, as symptoms are nonspecific and might be mistaken for more common pulmonary diseases, such as asthma or chronic bronchitis.⁴³

Since sarcoidosis can affect pulmonary parenchyma, interstitium, large and small airways, pulmonary vasculature, and respiratory muscles, the pattern of lung function impairment on PFT varies from normal to obstruction, restriction, isolated diffusion defect, or a combination of these. The typical physiologic abnormality is a restrictive ventilatory defect with a decreased diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Extent of disease seen on HRCT correlates with level of restriction.⁴⁴ Airway obstruction can be multifactorial and due to airway distortion (more likely to occur in fibrotic lung disease) and luminal disease.^45-48 The 6-minute walk test and DLCO can also aid in the diagnosis of SAPH and advanced parenchymal lung disease.

While monitoring is done clinically and with testing (PFT and imaging) as needed, the optimal approach is unclear. Nevertheless, longitudinal monitoring with testing may provide useful management and prognostic information.⁴⁰ Pulmonary function can remain stable in fibrotic sarcoidosis over extended periods and actually can improve in some patients.⁴⁹ Serial spirometry, particularly forced vital capacity, is the most reliable tool for monitoring; when a decline in measurement occurs, chest radiography can elucidate the mechanism.^50,51

Continue to: Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease...

Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease, caution needs to be exercised when evaluating a patient’s new or worsening respiratory symptoms to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and direct therapy accordingly. In addition to refractory inflammatory pulmonary disease, airway disease, infection, fibrosis, and SAPH, one needs to consider extrapulmonary involvement or complications such as cardiac or neurologic disease, musculoskeletal disease, depression, or fatigue. Adverse medication effects, deconditioning, or unrelated (or possibly related) disorders (eg pulmonary embolism) may be to blame.

Determining prognosis

Prognosis of sarcoidosis varies and depends on epidemiologic factors, clinical presentation, and course, as well as specific organ involvement. Patients may develop life-threatening pulmonary, cardiac, or neurologic complications. End-stage disease may require organ transplantation for eligible patients.

Most patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis experience clinical remission with minimal residual organ impairment and a favorable long-term outcome. Advanced pulmonary disease (known as APS) occurs in a small proportion of patients with sarcoidosis but accounts for most of the poor outcomes in sarcoidosis.⁴⁰ APS is variably defined, but it generally includes pulmonary fibrosis, SAPH, and respiratory infection.

One percent to 5% of patients with sarcoidosis die from complications, and mortality is higher in women and African Americans.⁵² Mortality and morbidity may be increasing.⁵³ The reasons behind these trends are unclear but could include true increases in disease incidence, better detection rates, greater severity of disease, or an aging population. Increased hospitalizations and health care use might be due to organ damage from granulomatous inflammation (and resultant fibrosis), complications associated with treatment, and psychosocial effects of the disease/treatment.

Management

Management consists primarily of anti-­inflammatory or immunosuppressive therapies but can also include measures to address specific complications (such as fatigue) and organ transplant, as well as efforts to counter adverse medication effects. Other supportive and preventive measures may include, on a case-by-case basis, oxygen supplementation, vaccinations, or pulmonary rehabilitation. Details of these are found in other, more in-depth reviews on treatment; we will briefly review anti-inflammatory therapy, which forms the cornerstone of treatment in most patients with sarcoidosis.

Continue to: General approach to treatment decisions

General approach to treatment decisions. Anti-inflammatory therapy is used to reduce granulomatous inflammation, thereby preserving organ function and reducing symptoms. A decision to begin treatment is one shared with the patient and is based on symptoms and potential danger of organ system failure.⁵⁴ Patients who are symptomatic or have progressive disease or physiologic impairment are generally candidates for treatment. Monitoring usually suffices for those who have minimal symptoms, stable disease, and preserved organ function.

Patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis at CXR stage 0 should not receive treatment, given that large, randomized trials have shown no meaningful benefit and that these patients have a high likelihood of spontaneous remission and excellent long-term prognosis.^55-58 However, a subgroup of patients classified as stage 0/I on CXR may show parenchymal disease on HRCT,⁵⁹ and, if more symptomatic, could be considered for treatment. For patients with stage II to IV pulmonary sarcoidosis with symptoms, there is good evidence that treatment may improve lung function and reduce dyspnea and fatigue.^57,60-62

Corticosteroids are first-line treatment for most patients. Based on expert opinion, treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis is generally started with oral prednisone (or an equivalent corticosteroid). A starting dose of 20 to 40 mg/d generally is sufficient for most patients. If the patient responds to initial treatment, prednisone dose is tapered over a period of months. If symptoms worsen during tapering, the minimum effective dose is maintained without further attempts at tapering. Treatment is continued for at least 3 to 6 months but it might be needed for longer durations; unfortunately, evidence-based guidelines are lacking.⁶³ Once the patient goes into remission, close monitoring is done for possible relapses. Inhaled corticosteroids alone have not reduced symptoms or improved lung function in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.^64-66

Steroid-sparing agents are added for many patients. For patients receiving chronic prednisone therapy (≥ 10 mg for > 6 months), steroid-sparing agents are considered to minimize the adverse effects of steroids or to better control the inflammatory activity of sarcoidosis. These agents must be carefully selected, and clinical and laboratory monitoring need to be done throughout therapy. TABLE 5^58,64,67-81shows the major anti-inflammatory treatment agents used for sarcoidosis.

The management might be complicated for extrapulmonary, multi-organ, and advanced sarcoidosis (advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis, cardiac disease, neurosarcoidosis, lupus pernio, etc) when specialized testing, as well as a combination of corticosteroids and steroid-sparing agents (with higher doses or prolonged courses), might be needed. This should be performed at an expert sarcoidosis center, ideally in a multidisciplinary setting involving pulmonologists and/or rheumatologists, chest radiologists, and specialists as indicated, based on specific organ involvement.

Continue to: Research and future directions

Research and future directions

Key goals for research are identifying more accurate biomarkers of disease, improving diagnosis of multi-organ disease, determining validated endpoints of clinical trials in sarcoidosis, and developing treatments for refractory cases.

There is optimism and opportunity in the field of sarcoidosis overall. An example of an advancement is in the area of APS, as the severity and importance of this phenotype has been better understood. Worldwide registries and trials of pulmonary vasodilator therapy (bosentan, sildenafil, epoprostenol, and inhaled iloprost) in patients with SAPH without left ventricular dysfunction are promising.^82-85 However, no benefit in survival has been shown.

RioSAPH is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Riociguat (a stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase) for SAPH (NCT02625558) that is closed to enrollment and undergoing data review. Similarly, results of the phase IV study of pirfenidone, an antifibrotic agent that was shown to decrease disease progression and deaths in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,⁸⁶ are awaited in the near future.

Other potential directions being explored are multicenter patient registries and randomized controlled trials, analyses of existing databases, use of biobanking, and patient-centered outcome measures. Hopefully, the care of patients with sarcoidosis will become more evidence based with ongoing and upcoming research in this field.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rohit Gupta, MBBS, FCCP, 3401 North Broad Street, 7 Parkinson Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA 19140; [email protected]

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disease of unclear etiology that primarily affects the lungs. It can occur at any age but usually develops before the age of 50 years, with an initial peak incidence at 20 to 29 years and a second peak incidence after 50 years of age, especially among women in Scandinavia and Japan.¹ Sarcoidosis affects men and women of all racial and ethnic groups throughout the world, but differences based on race, sex, and geography are noted.¹

The highest rates are reported in northern European and African-American individuals, particularly in women.^1,2 The adjusted annual incidence of sarcoidosis among African Americans is approximately 3 times that among White Americans³ and is more likely to be chronic and fatal in African Americans.³ The disease can be familial with a possible recessive inheritance mode with incomplete penetrance.⁴ Risk of sarcoidosis in monozygotic twins appears to be 80 times greater than that in the general population, which supports genetic factors accounting for two-thirds of disease susceptibility.⁵

Likely factors in the development of sarcoidosis

The exact cause of sarcoidosis is unknown, but we have insights into its pathogenesis and potential triggers.^1,6-9 Genes involved are being identified: class I and II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules are most consistently associated with risk of sarcoidosis. Environmental exposures can activate the innate immune system and precondition a susceptible individual to react to potential causative antigens in a highly polarized, antigen-specific Th1 immune response. The epithelioid granulomatous response involves local proinflammatory cytokine production and enhanced T-cell immunity at sites of inflammation.¹⁰ Granulomas generally form to confine pathogens, restrict inflammation, and protect surrounding tissue.^11-13

Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion; one must rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other disorders that cause granulomatous inflammation.

ACCESS (A Case Control Etiologic Study of Sarcoidosis) identified several environmental exposures such as chemicals used in the agriculture industry, mold or mildew, and musty odors at work.¹⁴ Tobacco use was not associated with sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Recent studies have shown positive associations with service in the US Navy,¹⁵ metal working,¹⁶ firefighting,¹⁷ the handling of building supplies,¹⁸ and onsite exposure while assisting in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center disaster.¹⁹ Other data support the likelihood that specific environmental exposures associated with microbe-rich environments modestly increase the risk of sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Mycobacterial and propionibacterial DNA and RNA are potentially associated with sarcoidosis.²⁰

Clinical manifestations are nonspecific

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis can be difficult and delayed due to diverse organ involvement and nonspecific presentations. TABLE 1^21-31 shows the diverse manifestations in a patient with suspected sarcoidosis. Around 50% of the patients are asymptomatic.^23,24 Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion, starting with a detailed history to rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other possible disorders (TABLE 2).²²

Diagnostic work-up

The primary objective of a diagnostic evaluation in most suspected cases of sarcoidosis is to corroborate the clinical and radiologic features with pathologic evidence of non-necrotizing granulomas and to exclude other causes of granulomatous inflammation.²²

Radiologic studies

Chest x-ray (CXR) provides diagnostic and prognostic information in the evaluation of sarcoidosis using the Scadding classification system (FIGURE 1).^21,25,32,33 Interobserver variability, especially between stages II and III and III and IV is the major limitation of this system.³² At presentation, radiographs are abnormal in approximately 90% of patients.³⁴ Lymphadenopathy is the most common radiographic abnormality, occurring in more than two-thirds of cases, and pulmonary opacities (nodules and reticulation) with a middle to upper lobe predilection are present in 20% to 50% of patients.^1,31,35 The nodules vary in size and can coalesce and cause alveolar collapse, thus producing consolidation.³⁶ Linear opacities radiating laterally from the hilum into the middle and upper zones are characteristic in fibrotic disease.

Continue to: High-resoluton computed tomography

High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Micronodules in a perilymphatic distribution with upper lobe predominance combined with subcarinal and symmetrical hilar lymph node enlargement is practically diagnostic of sarcoidosis in the right clinical context. TABLE 3^21,23,25,32 and FIGURE 2^21,23,25,32 summarize the common CT chest findings of sarcoidosis.

Advanced imaging such as (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used in specialized settings for advanced pulmonary, cardiac, or neurosarcoidosis.

Tissue biopsy

Skin lesions (other than erythema nodosum), eye lesions, and peripheral lymph nodes are considered the safest extrapulmonary locations for biopsy.^21,25 If pulmonary infiltrates or lymphadenopathy are present, or if extrapulmonary biopsy sites are not available, then flexible bronchoscopy with biopsy is the mainstay for tissue sampling.²⁵

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial biopsy (EBB), and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) are invaluable modalities that have reduced the need for open lung biopsy. BAL in sarcoidosis can show lymphocytosis > 15% (nonspecific) and a CD4:CD8 lymphocyte ratio > 3.5 (specificity > 90%).^21,22 TBB is more sensitive than EBB; however, sensitivity overall is heightened when both of them are combined. The advent of EBUS has increased the safety and efficiency of needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph nodes. Diagnostic yield of EBUS (~80%) is superior to that with TBB and EBB (~50%), especially in stage I and II sarcoidosis.³⁷ The combination of EBUS with TBB improves the diagnostic yield to ~90%.³⁷

The decision to obtain biopsy samples hinges on the nature of clinical and radiologic findings (FIGURE 3).^22,25,26

Continue to: Laboratory studies

Multiple abnormalities may be seen in sarcoidosis, and specific lab tests may help support a diagnosis of sarcoidosis or detect organ-specific disease activity (TABLE 4).^22,23,25,38 However, no consistently accurate biomarkers exist for use in clinical practice. An angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level greater than 2 times the upper limit of normal may be helpful; however, sensitivity remains low, and genetic polymorphisms can influence the ACE level.²⁵ Biomarkers sometimes used to assess disease activity are serum interleukin-2 receptor, neopterin, chitotriosidase, lysozyme, KL-6 glycoprotein, and amyloid A.²¹

Additional tests to assess specific features or organ involvement

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is reviewed in detail below under “pulmonary sarcoidosis.”

Electrocardiogram (EKG)/transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). EKG abnormalities—conduction disturbances, arrhythmias, or nonspecific ST segment and T-wave changes—are the most common nonspecific findings.³⁰ TTE findings are also nonspecific but have value in assessing cardiac chamber size and function and myocardial involvement. TTE is indeed the most common screening modality for sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension (SAPH), which is definitively diagnosed by right heart catheterization (RHC). Further evaluation for cardiac sarcoidosis can be done with cardiac MRI or fluorodeoxyglucose PET in specialized settings.

Lumbar puncture (LP) may reveal lymphocytic infiltration in suspected neurosarcoidosis, but the finding is nonspecific and can reflect infection or malignancy. Oligoclonal bands may also be seen in about one-third of neurosarcoidosis cases, and it is imperative to rule out multiple sclerosis.²⁸

Pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pulmonary sarcoidosis accounts for most of the morbidity, mortality, and health care use associated with sarcoidosis.^39,40

Continue to: Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Sarcoidosis is characterized by coalescing, tightly clustered, nonnecrotizing granulomas in the lung (FIGURE 4), most often located along the lymphatic routes of the pleura, interlobular septa, and bronchovascular bundles.⁴¹ Granulomas contain epithelioid cells or multinucleated giant cells surrounded by a chronic lymphocytic infiltrate. Typically, intracytoplasmic inclusions, such as Schaumann bodies, asteroid bodies, and blue bodies of calcium oxalates are noted within giant cells.

In chronic disease, lymphocytic infiltrate vanishes and granulomas tend to become increasingly fibrotic and enlarge to form hyalinized nodules rich with densely eosinophilic collagen. In 10% to 30% of cases, the lungs undergo progressive fibrosis.⁴⁰ Nonresolving inflammation appears to be the major cause of fibrosis and the peribronchovascular localization leading to marked bronchial distortion.

Clinical features, monitoring, and outcomes

Pulmonary involvement occurs in most patients with sarcoidosis, and subclinical pulmonary disease is generally present, even when extrathoracic manifestations predominate.²³ Dry cough, dyspnea, and chest discomfort are the most common symptoms. Chest auscultation is usually unremarkable. Wheezing is more common in those with fibrosis and is attributed to airway-centric fibrosis.⁴² There is often a substantial delay between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of pulmonary sarcoidosis, as symptoms are nonspecific and might be mistaken for more common pulmonary diseases, such as asthma or chronic bronchitis.⁴³

Since sarcoidosis can affect pulmonary parenchyma, interstitium, large and small airways, pulmonary vasculature, and respiratory muscles, the pattern of lung function impairment on PFT varies from normal to obstruction, restriction, isolated diffusion defect, or a combination of these. The typical physiologic abnormality is a restrictive ventilatory defect with a decreased diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Extent of disease seen on HRCT correlates with level of restriction.⁴⁴ Airway obstruction can be multifactorial and due to airway distortion (more likely to occur in fibrotic lung disease) and luminal disease.^45-48 The 6-minute walk test and DLCO can also aid in the diagnosis of SAPH and advanced parenchymal lung disease.

While monitoring is done clinically and with testing (PFT and imaging) as needed, the optimal approach is unclear. Nevertheless, longitudinal monitoring with testing may provide useful management and prognostic information.⁴⁰ Pulmonary function can remain stable in fibrotic sarcoidosis over extended periods and actually can improve in some patients.⁴⁹ Serial spirometry, particularly forced vital capacity, is the most reliable tool for monitoring; when a decline in measurement occurs, chest radiography can elucidate the mechanism.^50,51

Continue to: Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease...

Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease, caution needs to be exercised when evaluating a patient’s new or worsening respiratory symptoms to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and direct therapy accordingly. In addition to refractory inflammatory pulmonary disease, airway disease, infection, fibrosis, and SAPH, one needs to consider extrapulmonary involvement or complications such as cardiac or neurologic disease, musculoskeletal disease, depression, or fatigue. Adverse medication effects, deconditioning, or unrelated (or possibly related) disorders (eg pulmonary embolism) may be to blame.

Determining prognosis

Prognosis of sarcoidosis varies and depends on epidemiologic factors, clinical presentation, and course, as well as specific organ involvement. Patients may develop life-threatening pulmonary, cardiac, or neurologic complications. End-stage disease may require organ transplantation for eligible patients.

Most patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis experience clinical remission with minimal residual organ impairment and a favorable long-term outcome. Advanced pulmonary disease (known as APS) occurs in a small proportion of patients with sarcoidosis but accounts for most of the poor outcomes in sarcoidosis.⁴⁰ APS is variably defined, but it generally includes pulmonary fibrosis, SAPH, and respiratory infection.

One percent to 5% of patients with sarcoidosis die from complications, and mortality is higher in women and African Americans.⁵² Mortality and morbidity may be increasing.⁵³ The reasons behind these trends are unclear but could include true increases in disease incidence, better detection rates, greater severity of disease, or an aging population. Increased hospitalizations and health care use might be due to organ damage from granulomatous inflammation (and resultant fibrosis), complications associated with treatment, and psychosocial effects of the disease/treatment.

Management

Management consists primarily of anti-­inflammatory or immunosuppressive therapies but can also include measures to address specific complications (such as fatigue) and organ transplant, as well as efforts to counter adverse medication effects. Other supportive and preventive measures may include, on a case-by-case basis, oxygen supplementation, vaccinations, or pulmonary rehabilitation. Details of these are found in other, more in-depth reviews on treatment; we will briefly review anti-inflammatory therapy, which forms the cornerstone of treatment in most patients with sarcoidosis.

Continue to: General approach to treatment decisions

General approach to treatment decisions. Anti-inflammatory therapy is used to reduce granulomatous inflammation, thereby preserving organ function and reducing symptoms. A decision to begin treatment is one shared with the patient and is based on symptoms and potential danger of organ system failure.⁵⁴ Patients who are symptomatic or have progressive disease or physiologic impairment are generally candidates for treatment. Monitoring usually suffices for those who have minimal symptoms, stable disease, and preserved organ function.

Patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis at CXR stage 0 should not receive treatment, given that large, randomized trials have shown no meaningful benefit and that these patients have a high likelihood of spontaneous remission and excellent long-term prognosis.^55-58 However, a subgroup of patients classified as stage 0/I on CXR may show parenchymal disease on HRCT,⁵⁹ and, if more symptomatic, could be considered for treatment. For patients with stage II to IV pulmonary sarcoidosis with symptoms, there is good evidence that treatment may improve lung function and reduce dyspnea and fatigue.^57,60-62

Corticosteroids are first-line treatment for most patients. Based on expert opinion, treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis is generally started with oral prednisone (or an equivalent corticosteroid). A starting dose of 20 to 40 mg/d generally is sufficient for most patients. If the patient responds to initial treatment, prednisone dose is tapered over a period of months. If symptoms worsen during tapering, the minimum effective dose is maintained without further attempts at tapering. Treatment is continued for at least 3 to 6 months but it might be needed for longer durations; unfortunately, evidence-based guidelines are lacking.⁶³ Once the patient goes into remission, close monitoring is done for possible relapses. Inhaled corticosteroids alone have not reduced symptoms or improved lung function in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.^64-66

Steroid-sparing agents are added for many patients. For patients receiving chronic prednisone therapy (≥ 10 mg for > 6 months), steroid-sparing agents are considered to minimize the adverse effects of steroids or to better control the inflammatory activity of sarcoidosis. These agents must be carefully selected, and clinical and laboratory monitoring need to be done throughout therapy. TABLE 5^58,64,67-81shows the major anti-inflammatory treatment agents used for sarcoidosis.

The management might be complicated for extrapulmonary, multi-organ, and advanced sarcoidosis (advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis, cardiac disease, neurosarcoidosis, lupus pernio, etc) when specialized testing, as well as a combination of corticosteroids and steroid-sparing agents (with higher doses or prolonged courses), might be needed. This should be performed at an expert sarcoidosis center, ideally in a multidisciplinary setting involving pulmonologists and/or rheumatologists, chest radiologists, and specialists as indicated, based on specific organ involvement.

Continue to: Research and future directions

Research and future directions

Key goals for research are identifying more accurate biomarkers of disease, improving diagnosis of multi-organ disease, determining validated endpoints of clinical trials in sarcoidosis, and developing treatments for refractory cases.

There is optimism and opportunity in the field of sarcoidosis overall. An example of an advancement is in the area of APS, as the severity and importance of this phenotype has been better understood. Worldwide registries and trials of pulmonary vasodilator therapy (bosentan, sildenafil, epoprostenol, and inhaled iloprost) in patients with SAPH without left ventricular dysfunction are promising.^82-85 However, no benefit in survival has been shown.

RioSAPH is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Riociguat (a stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase) for SAPH (NCT02625558) that is closed to enrollment and undergoing data review. Similarly, results of the phase IV study of pirfenidone, an antifibrotic agent that was shown to decrease disease progression and deaths in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,⁸⁶ are awaited in the near future.

Other potential directions being explored are multicenter patient registries and randomized controlled trials, analyses of existing databases, use of biobanking, and patient-centered outcome measures. Hopefully, the care of patients with sarcoidosis will become more evidence based with ongoing and upcoming research in this field.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rohit Gupta, MBBS, FCCP, 3401 North Broad Street, 7 Parkinson Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA 19140; [email protected]

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disease of unclear etiology that primarily affects the lungs. It can occur at any age but usually develops before the age of 50 years, with an initial peak incidence at 20 to 29 years and a second peak incidence after 50 years of age, especially among women in Scandinavia and Japan.¹ Sarcoidosis affects men and women of all racial and ethnic groups throughout the world, but differences based on race, sex, and geography are noted.¹

The highest rates are reported in northern European and African-American individuals, particularly in women.^1,2 The adjusted annual incidence of sarcoidosis among African Americans is approximately 3 times that among White Americans³ and is more likely to be chronic and fatal in African Americans.³ The disease can be familial with a possible recessive inheritance mode with incomplete penetrance.⁴ Risk of sarcoidosis in monozygotic twins appears to be 80 times greater than that in the general population, which supports genetic factors accounting for two-thirds of disease susceptibility.⁵

Likely factors in the development of sarcoidosis

The exact cause of sarcoidosis is unknown, but we have insights into its pathogenesis and potential triggers.^1,6-9 Genes involved are being identified: class I and II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules are most consistently associated with risk of sarcoidosis. Environmental exposures can activate the innate immune system and precondition a susceptible individual to react to potential causative antigens in a highly polarized, antigen-specific Th1 immune response. The epithelioid granulomatous response involves local proinflammatory cytokine production and enhanced T-cell immunity at sites of inflammation.¹⁰ Granulomas generally form to confine pathogens, restrict inflammation, and protect surrounding tissue.^11-13

Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion; one must rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other disorders that cause granulomatous inflammation.

ACCESS (A Case Control Etiologic Study of Sarcoidosis) identified several environmental exposures such as chemicals used in the agriculture industry, mold or mildew, and musty odors at work.¹⁴ Tobacco use was not associated with sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Recent studies have shown positive associations with service in the US Navy,¹⁵ metal working,¹⁶ firefighting,¹⁷ the handling of building supplies,¹⁸ and onsite exposure while assisting in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center disaster.¹⁹ Other data support the likelihood that specific environmental exposures associated with microbe-rich environments modestly increase the risk of sarcoidosis.¹⁴ Mycobacterial and propionibacterial DNA and RNA are potentially associated with sarcoidosis.²⁰

Clinical manifestations are nonspecific

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis can be difficult and delayed due to diverse organ involvement and nonspecific presentations. TABLE 1^21-31 shows the diverse manifestations in a patient with suspected sarcoidosis. Around 50% of the patients are asymptomatic.^23,24 Sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion, starting with a detailed history to rule out infections, occupational or environmental exposures, malignancies, and other possible disorders (TABLE 2).²²

Diagnostic work-up

The primary objective of a diagnostic evaluation in most suspected cases of sarcoidosis is to corroborate the clinical and radiologic features with pathologic evidence of non-necrotizing granulomas and to exclude other causes of granulomatous inflammation.²²

Radiologic studies

Chest x-ray (CXR) provides diagnostic and prognostic information in the evaluation of sarcoidosis using the Scadding classification system (FIGURE 1).^21,25,32,33 Interobserver variability, especially between stages II and III and III and IV is the major limitation of this system.³² At presentation, radiographs are abnormal in approximately 90% of patients.³⁴ Lymphadenopathy is the most common radiographic abnormality, occurring in more than two-thirds of cases, and pulmonary opacities (nodules and reticulation) with a middle to upper lobe predilection are present in 20% to 50% of patients.^1,31,35 The nodules vary in size and can coalesce and cause alveolar collapse, thus producing consolidation.³⁶ Linear opacities radiating laterally from the hilum into the middle and upper zones are characteristic in fibrotic disease.

Continue to: High-resoluton computed tomography

High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Micronodules in a perilymphatic distribution with upper lobe predominance combined with subcarinal and symmetrical hilar lymph node enlargement is practically diagnostic of sarcoidosis in the right clinical context. TABLE 3^21,23,25,32 and FIGURE 2^21,23,25,32 summarize the common CT chest findings of sarcoidosis.

Advanced imaging such as (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used in specialized settings for advanced pulmonary, cardiac, or neurosarcoidosis.

Tissue biopsy

Skin lesions (other than erythema nodosum), eye lesions, and peripheral lymph nodes are considered the safest extrapulmonary locations for biopsy.^21,25 If pulmonary infiltrates or lymphadenopathy are present, or if extrapulmonary biopsy sites are not available, then flexible bronchoscopy with biopsy is the mainstay for tissue sampling.²⁵

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial biopsy (EBB), and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) are invaluable modalities that have reduced the need for open lung biopsy. BAL in sarcoidosis can show lymphocytosis > 15% (nonspecific) and a CD4:CD8 lymphocyte ratio > 3.5 (specificity > 90%).^21,22 TBB is more sensitive than EBB; however, sensitivity overall is heightened when both of them are combined. The advent of EBUS has increased the safety and efficiency of needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph nodes. Diagnostic yield of EBUS (~80%) is superior to that with TBB and EBB (~50%), especially in stage I and II sarcoidosis.³⁷ The combination of EBUS with TBB improves the diagnostic yield to ~90%.³⁷

The decision to obtain biopsy samples hinges on the nature of clinical and radiologic findings (FIGURE 3).^22,25,26

Continue to: Laboratory studies

Multiple abnormalities may be seen in sarcoidosis, and specific lab tests may help support a diagnosis of sarcoidosis or detect organ-specific disease activity (TABLE 4).^22,23,25,38 However, no consistently accurate biomarkers exist for use in clinical practice. An angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level greater than 2 times the upper limit of normal may be helpful; however, sensitivity remains low, and genetic polymorphisms can influence the ACE level.²⁵ Biomarkers sometimes used to assess disease activity are serum interleukin-2 receptor, neopterin, chitotriosidase, lysozyme, KL-6 glycoprotein, and amyloid A.²¹

Additional tests to assess specific features or organ involvement

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is reviewed in detail below under “pulmonary sarcoidosis.”

Electrocardiogram (EKG)/transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). EKG abnormalities—conduction disturbances, arrhythmias, or nonspecific ST segment and T-wave changes—are the most common nonspecific findings.³⁰ TTE findings are also nonspecific but have value in assessing cardiac chamber size and function and myocardial involvement. TTE is indeed the most common screening modality for sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension (SAPH), which is definitively diagnosed by right heart catheterization (RHC). Further evaluation for cardiac sarcoidosis can be done with cardiac MRI or fluorodeoxyglucose PET in specialized settings.

Lumbar puncture (LP) may reveal lymphocytic infiltration in suspected neurosarcoidosis, but the finding is nonspecific and can reflect infection or malignancy. Oligoclonal bands may also be seen in about one-third of neurosarcoidosis cases, and it is imperative to rule out multiple sclerosis.²⁸

Pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pulmonary sarcoidosis accounts for most of the morbidity, mortality, and health care use associated with sarcoidosis.^39,40

Continue to: Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Pathology of early and advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis

Sarcoidosis is characterized by coalescing, tightly clustered, nonnecrotizing granulomas in the lung (FIGURE 4), most often located along the lymphatic routes of the pleura, interlobular septa, and bronchovascular bundles.⁴¹ Granulomas contain epithelioid cells or multinucleated giant cells surrounded by a chronic lymphocytic infiltrate. Typically, intracytoplasmic inclusions, such as Schaumann bodies, asteroid bodies, and blue bodies of calcium oxalates are noted within giant cells.

In chronic disease, lymphocytic infiltrate vanishes and granulomas tend to become increasingly fibrotic and enlarge to form hyalinized nodules rich with densely eosinophilic collagen. In 10% to 30% of cases, the lungs undergo progressive fibrosis.⁴⁰ Nonresolving inflammation appears to be the major cause of fibrosis and the peribronchovascular localization leading to marked bronchial distortion.

Clinical features, monitoring, and outcomes

Pulmonary involvement occurs in most patients with sarcoidosis, and subclinical pulmonary disease is generally present, even when extrathoracic manifestations predominate.²³ Dry cough, dyspnea, and chest discomfort are the most common symptoms. Chest auscultation is usually unremarkable. Wheezing is more common in those with fibrosis and is attributed to airway-centric fibrosis.⁴² There is often a substantial delay between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of pulmonary sarcoidosis, as symptoms are nonspecific and might be mistaken for more common pulmonary diseases, such as asthma or chronic bronchitis.⁴³

Since sarcoidosis can affect pulmonary parenchyma, interstitium, large and small airways, pulmonary vasculature, and respiratory muscles, the pattern of lung function impairment on PFT varies from normal to obstruction, restriction, isolated diffusion defect, or a combination of these. The typical physiologic abnormality is a restrictive ventilatory defect with a decreased diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Extent of disease seen on HRCT correlates with level of restriction.⁴⁴ Airway obstruction can be multifactorial and due to airway distortion (more likely to occur in fibrotic lung disease) and luminal disease.^45-48 The 6-minute walk test and DLCO can also aid in the diagnosis of SAPH and advanced parenchymal lung disease.

While monitoring is done clinically and with testing (PFT and imaging) as needed, the optimal approach is unclear. Nevertheless, longitudinal monitoring with testing may provide useful management and prognostic information.⁴⁰ Pulmonary function can remain stable in fibrotic sarcoidosis over extended periods and actually can improve in some patients.⁴⁹ Serial spirometry, particularly forced vital capacity, is the most reliable tool for monitoring; when a decline in measurement occurs, chest radiography can elucidate the mechanism.^50,51

Continue to: Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease...

Because sarcoidosis is a multisystem disease, caution needs to be exercised when evaluating a patient’s new or worsening respiratory symptoms to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and direct therapy accordingly. In addition to refractory inflammatory pulmonary disease, airway disease, infection, fibrosis, and SAPH, one needs to consider extrapulmonary involvement or complications such as cardiac or neurologic disease, musculoskeletal disease, depression, or fatigue. Adverse medication effects, deconditioning, or unrelated (or possibly related) disorders (eg pulmonary embolism) may be to blame.

Determining prognosis

Prognosis of sarcoidosis varies and depends on epidemiologic factors, clinical presentation, and course, as well as specific organ involvement. Patients may develop life-threatening pulmonary, cardiac, or neurologic complications. End-stage disease may require organ transplantation for eligible patients.

Most patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis experience clinical remission with minimal residual organ impairment and a favorable long-term outcome. Advanced pulmonary disease (known as APS) occurs in a small proportion of patients with sarcoidosis but accounts for most of the poor outcomes in sarcoidosis.⁴⁰ APS is variably defined, but it generally includes pulmonary fibrosis, SAPH, and respiratory infection.

One percent to 5% of patients with sarcoidosis die from complications, and mortality is higher in women and African Americans.⁵² Mortality and morbidity may be increasing.⁵³ The reasons behind these trends are unclear but could include true increases in disease incidence, better detection rates, greater severity of disease, or an aging population. Increased hospitalizations and health care use might be due to organ damage from granulomatous inflammation (and resultant fibrosis), complications associated with treatment, and psychosocial effects of the disease/treatment.

Management

Management consists primarily of anti-­inflammatory or immunosuppressive therapies but can also include measures to address specific complications (such as fatigue) and organ transplant, as well as efforts to counter adverse medication effects. Other supportive and preventive measures may include, on a case-by-case basis, oxygen supplementation, vaccinations, or pulmonary rehabilitation. Details of these are found in other, more in-depth reviews on treatment; we will briefly review anti-inflammatory therapy, which forms the cornerstone of treatment in most patients with sarcoidosis.

Continue to: General approach to treatment decisions

General approach to treatment decisions. Anti-inflammatory therapy is used to reduce granulomatous inflammation, thereby preserving organ function and reducing symptoms. A decision to begin treatment is one shared with the patient and is based on symptoms and potential danger of organ system failure.⁵⁴ Patients who are symptomatic or have progressive disease or physiologic impairment are generally candidates for treatment. Monitoring usually suffices for those who have minimal symptoms, stable disease, and preserved organ function.

Patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis at CXR stage 0 should not receive treatment, given that large, randomized trials have shown no meaningful benefit and that these patients have a high likelihood of spontaneous remission and excellent long-term prognosis.^55-58 However, a subgroup of patients classified as stage 0/I on CXR may show parenchymal disease on HRCT,⁵⁹ and, if more symptomatic, could be considered for treatment. For patients with stage II to IV pulmonary sarcoidosis with symptoms, there is good evidence that treatment may improve lung function and reduce dyspnea and fatigue.^57,60-62

Corticosteroids are first-line treatment for most patients. Based on expert opinion, treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis is generally started with oral prednisone (or an equivalent corticosteroid). A starting dose of 20 to 40 mg/d generally is sufficient for most patients. If the patient responds to initial treatment, prednisone dose is tapered over a period of months. If symptoms worsen during tapering, the minimum effective dose is maintained without further attempts at tapering. Treatment is continued for at least 3 to 6 months but it might be needed for longer durations; unfortunately, evidence-based guidelines are lacking.⁶³ Once the patient goes into remission, close monitoring is done for possible relapses. Inhaled corticosteroids alone have not reduced symptoms or improved lung function in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.^64-66

Steroid-sparing agents are added for many patients. For patients receiving chronic prednisone therapy (≥ 10 mg for > 6 months), steroid-sparing agents are considered to minimize the adverse effects of steroids or to better control the inflammatory activity of sarcoidosis. These agents must be carefully selected, and clinical and laboratory monitoring need to be done throughout therapy. TABLE 5^58,64,67-81shows the major anti-inflammatory treatment agents used for sarcoidosis.

The management might be complicated for extrapulmonary, multi-organ, and advanced sarcoidosis (advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis, cardiac disease, neurosarcoidosis, lupus pernio, etc) when specialized testing, as well as a combination of corticosteroids and steroid-sparing agents (with higher doses or prolonged courses), might be needed. This should be performed at an expert sarcoidosis center, ideally in a multidisciplinary setting involving pulmonologists and/or rheumatologists, chest radiologists, and specialists as indicated, based on specific organ involvement.

Continue to: Research and future directions

Research and future directions

Key goals for research are identifying more accurate biomarkers of disease, improving diagnosis of multi-organ disease, determining validated endpoints of clinical trials in sarcoidosis, and developing treatments for refractory cases.

There is optimism and opportunity in the field of sarcoidosis overall. An example of an advancement is in the area of APS, as the severity and importance of this phenotype has been better understood. Worldwide registries and trials of pulmonary vasodilator therapy (bosentan, sildenafil, epoprostenol, and inhaled iloprost) in patients with SAPH without left ventricular dysfunction are promising.^82-85 However, no benefit in survival has been shown.

RioSAPH is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Riociguat (a stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase) for SAPH (NCT02625558) that is closed to enrollment and undergoing data review. Similarly, results of the phase IV study of pirfenidone, an antifibrotic agent that was shown to decrease disease progression and deaths in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,⁸⁶ are awaited in the near future.

Other potential directions being explored are multicenter patient registries and randomized controlled trials, analyses of existing databases, use of biobanking, and patient-centered outcome measures. Hopefully, the care of patients with sarcoidosis will become more evidence based with ongoing and upcoming research in this field.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rohit Gupta, MBBS, FCCP, 3401 North Broad Street, 7 Parkinson Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA 19140; [email protected]

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.¹

FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.²

Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.

The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.^3,4

LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.⁵ LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.

For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.

Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.⁶ All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.

This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.^7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
 

References

1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.

2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.

3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.

4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.

5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.

6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.

7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.

8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.¹

FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.²

Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.

The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.^3,4

LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.⁵ LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.

For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.

Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.⁶ All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.

This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.^7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
 

References

1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.

2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.

3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.

4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.

5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.

6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.

7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.

8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.¹

FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.²

Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.

The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.^3,4

LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.⁵ LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.

For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.

Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.⁶ All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.

This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.^7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
 

References

1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.

2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.

3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.

4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.

5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.

6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.

7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.

8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

THE CASE

A 37-year-old man with a history of asthma, schizoaffective disorder, and tobacco use (36 packs per year) presented to the clinic after 5 days of worsening cough, reproducible left-sided chest pain, and increasing shortness of breath. He also experienced chills, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting but was afebrile. The patient had not travelled recently nor had direct contact with anyone sick. He also denied intravenous (IV) drug use, alcohol use, and bloody sputum. Recently, he had intentionally lost weight, as recommended by his psychiatrist.

Medication review revealed that he was taking many central-acting agents for schizoaffective disorder, including alprazolam, aripiprazole, desvenlafaxine, and quetiapine. Due to his intermittent asthma since childhood, he used an albuterol inhaler as needed, which currently offered only minimal relief. He denied any history of hospitalization or intubation for asthma.

During the clinic visit, his blood pressure was 90/60 mm Hg and his heart rate was normal. His pulse oximetry was 92% on room air. On physical examination, he had normal-appearing dentition. Auscultation revealed bilateral expiratory wheezes with decreased breath sounds at the left lower lobe.

A plain chest radiograph (CXR) performed in the clinic (FIGURE 1) showed a large, thick-walled cavitary lesion with an air-fluid level in the left lower lobe. The patient was directly admitted to the Family Medicine Inpatient Service. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast was ordered to rule out empyema or malignancy. The chest CT confirmed the previous findings while also revealing a surrounding satellite nodularity in the left lower lobe (FIGURE 2). QuantiFERON-TB Gold and HIV tests were both negative.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of a lung abscess based on symptoms and imaging. An extensive smoking history, as well as multiple sedating medications, increased his likelihood of aspiration.

DISCUSSION

Lung abscess is the probable diagnosis in a patient with indolent infectious symptoms (cough, fever, night sweats) developing over days to weeks and a CXR finding of pulmonary opacity, often with an air-fluid level.^1-4 A lung abscess is a circumscribed collection of pus in the lung parenchyma that develops as a result of microbial infection.⁴

Primary vs secondary abscess. Lung abscesses can be divided into 2 groups: primary and secondary abscesses. Primary abscesses (60%) occur without any other medical condition or in patients prone to aspiration.⁵ Secondary abscesses occur in the setting of a comorbid medical condition, such as lung disease, heart disease, bronchogenic neoplasm, or immunocompromised status.⁵

Continue to: With a primary lung abscess...

With a primary lung abscess, oropharyngeal contents are aspirated (generally while the patient is unconscious) and contain mixed flora.² The aspirate typically migrates to the posterior segments of the upper lobes and to the superior segments of the lower lobes. These abscesses are usually singular and have an air-fluid level.^1,2

Secondary lung abscesses occur in bronchial obstruction (by tumor, foreign body, or enlarged lymph nodes), with coexisting lung diseases (bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, infected pulmonary infarcts, lung contusion) or by direct spread (broncho-esophageal fistula, subphrenic abscess).⁶ Secondary abscesses are associated with a poorer prognosis, dependent on the patient’s general condition and underlying disease.⁷

What to rule out

The differential diagnosis of cavitary lung lesion includes tuberculosis, necrotizing pneumonia, bronchial carcinoma, pulmonary embolism, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome), and localized pleural empyema.^1,4 A CT scan is helpful to differentiate between a parenchymal lesion and pleural collection, which may not be as clear on CXR.^1,4

Tuberculosis manifests with fatigue, weight loss, and night sweats; a chest CT will reveal a cavitating lesion (usually upper lobe) with a characteristic “rim sign” that includes caseous necrosis surrounded by a peripheral enhancing rim.⁸

Necrotizing pneumonia manifests as acute, fulminant infection. The most common causative organisms on sputum culture are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas species. Plain radiography will reveal multiple cavities and often associated pleural effusion and empyema.⁹

Continue to: Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas

Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas differ from a lung abscess in that a patient with the latter is typically, but not always, febrile and has purulent sputum. On imaging, a bronchogenic carcinoma has a thicker and more irregular wall than a lung abscess.¹⁰

Treatment

When antibiotics first became available, penicillin was used to treat lung abscess.¹¹ Then IV clindamycin became the drug of choice after 2 trials demonstrated its superiority to IV penicillin.^12,13 More recently, clindamycin alone has fallen out of favor due to growing anaerobic resistance.¹⁴

Current therapy includes beta-lactam with beta-lactamase inhibitors.¹⁴ Lung abscesses are typically polymicrobial and thus carry different degrees of antibiotic resistance.^15,16 If culture data are available, targeted therapy is preferred, especially for secondary abscesses.⁷ Antibiotic therapy is usually continued until a CXR reveals a small lesion or is clear, which may require several months of outpatient oral antibiotic therapy.⁴

Our patient was treated with IV clindamycin for 3 days in the hospital. Clindamycin was chosen due to his penicillin allergy and started empirically without any culture data. He was transitioned to oral clindamycin and completed a total 3-week course as his CXR continued to show improvement (FIGURE 3). He did not undergo bronchoscopy. A follow-up CXR showed resolution of lung abscess at 9 months. (FIGURE 4).

THE TAKEAWAY

All patients with lung abscesses should have sputum culture with gram stain done—­ideally prior to starting antibiotics.^3,4 Bronchoscopy should be considered for patients with atypical presentations or those who fail standard therapy, but may be used in other cases, as well.³

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn Street, Denver, CO 80238; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 37-year-old man with a history of asthma, schizoaffective disorder, and tobacco use (36 packs per year) presented to the clinic after 5 days of worsening cough, reproducible left-sided chest pain, and increasing shortness of breath. He also experienced chills, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting but was afebrile. The patient had not travelled recently nor had direct contact with anyone sick. He also denied intravenous (IV) drug use, alcohol use, and bloody sputum. Recently, he had intentionally lost weight, as recommended by his psychiatrist.

Medication review revealed that he was taking many central-acting agents for schizoaffective disorder, including alprazolam, aripiprazole, desvenlafaxine, and quetiapine. Due to his intermittent asthma since childhood, he used an albuterol inhaler as needed, which currently offered only minimal relief. He denied any history of hospitalization or intubation for asthma.

During the clinic visit, his blood pressure was 90/60 mm Hg and his heart rate was normal. His pulse oximetry was 92% on room air. On physical examination, he had normal-appearing dentition. Auscultation revealed bilateral expiratory wheezes with decreased breath sounds at the left lower lobe.

A plain chest radiograph (CXR) performed in the clinic (FIGURE 1) showed a large, thick-walled cavitary lesion with an air-fluid level in the left lower lobe. The patient was directly admitted to the Family Medicine Inpatient Service. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast was ordered to rule out empyema or malignancy. The chest CT confirmed the previous findings while also revealing a surrounding satellite nodularity in the left lower lobe (FIGURE 2). QuantiFERON-TB Gold and HIV tests were both negative.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of a lung abscess based on symptoms and imaging. An extensive smoking history, as well as multiple sedating medications, increased his likelihood of aspiration.

DISCUSSION

Lung abscess is the probable diagnosis in a patient with indolent infectious symptoms (cough, fever, night sweats) developing over days to weeks and a CXR finding of pulmonary opacity, often with an air-fluid level.^1-4 A lung abscess is a circumscribed collection of pus in the lung parenchyma that develops as a result of microbial infection.⁴

Primary vs secondary abscess. Lung abscesses can be divided into 2 groups: primary and secondary abscesses. Primary abscesses (60%) occur without any other medical condition or in patients prone to aspiration.⁵ Secondary abscesses occur in the setting of a comorbid medical condition, such as lung disease, heart disease, bronchogenic neoplasm, or immunocompromised status.⁵

Continue to: With a primary lung abscess...

With a primary lung abscess, oropharyngeal contents are aspirated (generally while the patient is unconscious) and contain mixed flora.² The aspirate typically migrates to the posterior segments of the upper lobes and to the superior segments of the lower lobes. These abscesses are usually singular and have an air-fluid level.^1,2

Secondary lung abscesses occur in bronchial obstruction (by tumor, foreign body, or enlarged lymph nodes), with coexisting lung diseases (bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, infected pulmonary infarcts, lung contusion) or by direct spread (broncho-esophageal fistula, subphrenic abscess).⁶ Secondary abscesses are associated with a poorer prognosis, dependent on the patient’s general condition and underlying disease.⁷

What to rule out

The differential diagnosis of cavitary lung lesion includes tuberculosis, necrotizing pneumonia, bronchial carcinoma, pulmonary embolism, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome), and localized pleural empyema.^1,4 A CT scan is helpful to differentiate between a parenchymal lesion and pleural collection, which may not be as clear on CXR.^1,4

Tuberculosis manifests with fatigue, weight loss, and night sweats; a chest CT will reveal a cavitating lesion (usually upper lobe) with a characteristic “rim sign” that includes caseous necrosis surrounded by a peripheral enhancing rim.⁸

Necrotizing pneumonia manifests as acute, fulminant infection. The most common causative organisms on sputum culture are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas species. Plain radiography will reveal multiple cavities and often associated pleural effusion and empyema.⁹

Continue to: Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas

Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas differ from a lung abscess in that a patient with the latter is typically, but not always, febrile and has purulent sputum. On imaging, a bronchogenic carcinoma has a thicker and more irregular wall than a lung abscess.¹⁰

Treatment

When antibiotics first became available, penicillin was used to treat lung abscess.¹¹ Then IV clindamycin became the drug of choice after 2 trials demonstrated its superiority to IV penicillin.^12,13 More recently, clindamycin alone has fallen out of favor due to growing anaerobic resistance.¹⁴

Current therapy includes beta-lactam with beta-lactamase inhibitors.¹⁴ Lung abscesses are typically polymicrobial and thus carry different degrees of antibiotic resistance.^15,16 If culture data are available, targeted therapy is preferred, especially for secondary abscesses.⁷ Antibiotic therapy is usually continued until a CXR reveals a small lesion or is clear, which may require several months of outpatient oral antibiotic therapy.⁴

Our patient was treated with IV clindamycin for 3 days in the hospital. Clindamycin was chosen due to his penicillin allergy and started empirically without any culture data. He was transitioned to oral clindamycin and completed a total 3-week course as his CXR continued to show improvement (FIGURE 3). He did not undergo bronchoscopy. A follow-up CXR showed resolution of lung abscess at 9 months. (FIGURE 4).

THE TAKEAWAY

All patients with lung abscesses should have sputum culture with gram stain done—­ideally prior to starting antibiotics.^3,4 Bronchoscopy should be considered for patients with atypical presentations or those who fail standard therapy, but may be used in other cases, as well.³

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn Street, Denver, CO 80238; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 37-year-old man with a history of asthma, schizoaffective disorder, and tobacco use (36 packs per year) presented to the clinic after 5 days of worsening cough, reproducible left-sided chest pain, and increasing shortness of breath. He also experienced chills, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting but was afebrile. The patient had not travelled recently nor had direct contact with anyone sick. He also denied intravenous (IV) drug use, alcohol use, and bloody sputum. Recently, he had intentionally lost weight, as recommended by his psychiatrist.

Medication review revealed that he was taking many central-acting agents for schizoaffective disorder, including alprazolam, aripiprazole, desvenlafaxine, and quetiapine. Due to his intermittent asthma since childhood, he used an albuterol inhaler as needed, which currently offered only minimal relief. He denied any history of hospitalization or intubation for asthma.

During the clinic visit, his blood pressure was 90/60 mm Hg and his heart rate was normal. His pulse oximetry was 92% on room air. On physical examination, he had normal-appearing dentition. Auscultation revealed bilateral expiratory wheezes with decreased breath sounds at the left lower lobe.

A plain chest radiograph (CXR) performed in the clinic (FIGURE 1) showed a large, thick-walled cavitary lesion with an air-fluid level in the left lower lobe. The patient was directly admitted to the Family Medicine Inpatient Service. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest with contrast was ordered to rule out empyema or malignancy. The chest CT confirmed the previous findings while also revealing a surrounding satellite nodularity in the left lower lobe (FIGURE 2). QuantiFERON-TB Gold and HIV tests were both negative.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of a lung abscess based on symptoms and imaging. An extensive smoking history, as well as multiple sedating medications, increased his likelihood of aspiration.

DISCUSSION

Lung abscess is the probable diagnosis in a patient with indolent infectious symptoms (cough, fever, night sweats) developing over days to weeks and a CXR finding of pulmonary opacity, often with an air-fluid level.^1-4 A lung abscess is a circumscribed collection of pus in the lung parenchyma that develops as a result of microbial infection.⁴

Primary vs secondary abscess. Lung abscesses can be divided into 2 groups: primary and secondary abscesses. Primary abscesses (60%) occur without any other medical condition or in patients prone to aspiration.⁵ Secondary abscesses occur in the setting of a comorbid medical condition, such as lung disease, heart disease, bronchogenic neoplasm, or immunocompromised status.⁵

Continue to: With a primary lung abscess...

With a primary lung abscess, oropharyngeal contents are aspirated (generally while the patient is unconscious) and contain mixed flora.² The aspirate typically migrates to the posterior segments of the upper lobes and to the superior segments of the lower lobes. These abscesses are usually singular and have an air-fluid level.^1,2

Secondary lung abscesses occur in bronchial obstruction (by tumor, foreign body, or enlarged lymph nodes), with coexisting lung diseases (bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, infected pulmonary infarcts, lung contusion) or by direct spread (broncho-esophageal fistula, subphrenic abscess).⁶ Secondary abscesses are associated with a poorer prognosis, dependent on the patient’s general condition and underlying disease.⁷

What to rule out

The differential diagnosis of cavitary lung lesion includes tuberculosis, necrotizing pneumonia, bronchial carcinoma, pulmonary embolism, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome), and localized pleural empyema.^1,4 A CT scan is helpful to differentiate between a parenchymal lesion and pleural collection, which may not be as clear on CXR.^1,4

Tuberculosis manifests with fatigue, weight loss, and night sweats; a chest CT will reveal a cavitating lesion (usually upper lobe) with a characteristic “rim sign” that includes caseous necrosis surrounded by a peripheral enhancing rim.⁸

Necrotizing pneumonia manifests as acute, fulminant infection. The most common causative organisms on sputum culture are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas species. Plain radiography will reveal multiple cavities and often associated pleural effusion and empyema.⁹

Continue to: Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas

Excavating bronchogenic carcinomas differ from a lung abscess in that a patient with the latter is typically, but not always, febrile and has purulent sputum. On imaging, a bronchogenic carcinoma has a thicker and more irregular wall than a lung abscess.¹⁰

Treatment

When antibiotics first became available, penicillin was used to treat lung abscess.¹¹ Then IV clindamycin became the drug of choice after 2 trials demonstrated its superiority to IV penicillin.^12,13 More recently, clindamycin alone has fallen out of favor due to growing anaerobic resistance.¹⁴

Current therapy includes beta-lactam with beta-lactamase inhibitors.¹⁴ Lung abscesses are typically polymicrobial and thus carry different degrees of antibiotic resistance.^15,16 If culture data are available, targeted therapy is preferred, especially for secondary abscesses.⁷ Antibiotic therapy is usually continued until a CXR reveals a small lesion or is clear, which may require several months of outpatient oral antibiotic therapy.⁴

Our patient was treated with IV clindamycin for 3 days in the hospital. Clindamycin was chosen due to his penicillin allergy and started empirically without any culture data. He was transitioned to oral clindamycin and completed a total 3-week course as his CXR continued to show improvement (FIGURE 3). He did not undergo bronchoscopy. A follow-up CXR showed resolution of lung abscess at 9 months. (FIGURE 4).

THE TAKEAWAY

All patients with lung abscesses should have sputum culture with gram stain done—­ideally prior to starting antibiotics.^3,4 Bronchoscopy should be considered for patients with atypical presentations or those who fail standard therapy, but may be used in other cases, as well.³

CORRESPONDENCE
Morteza Khodaee, MD, MPH, AFW Clinic, 3055 Roslyn Street, Denver, CO 80238; [email protected]

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.

Patients with COPD may benefit from stepped-up treatment of short-term disease progression with triple therapy to stave off longer-term exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

©moodboard/thinkstockphotos.com

Clinically important deterioration was a significant predictor of worsening disease and all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a study based on data from more than 10,000 patients has shown.

For this study, clinically important deterioration (CID) as a measure of COPD is defined as a combination of change in lung function and/or health status, or a first acute moderate to severe COPD exacerbation, wrote MeiLan K. Han, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

The study was published in ERJ Open Research The investigators analyzed data from the IMPACT trial, a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study of symptomatic COPD patients aged 40 years and older.

In the intent-to-treat population, patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year were randomized to a once-daily dose of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg (4,151 patients); FF/VI 100/25 mcg (4,134 patients); or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg using a single dry-power inhaler (2,070 patients).

The researchers explored both the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the impact of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk. CID was defined as any of the following: moderate/severe exacerbation; deterioration in lung function (defined as a decrease of 100 mL or more from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume per second); or deterioration in health status based on increases of 4.0 units or more on the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score or 2.0 units or more on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score.

Overall, patients with a CID by 28 weeks had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, as well as smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (P < .001 for all). In addition, CID patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after 28 weeks, compared with patients without CID. However, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk, compared with dual therapies, the researchers noted.

Based on the CID SGRQ definition, patients with CID had a 75% increase in moderate to severe exacerbations by week 28 and a 96% in severe exacerbations over weeks 29-52. The increases were similar using the CID CAT definition (72% and 91%, respectively).

Patients with CID also showed significantly reduced improvements in both lung function and health status after 1 year, and a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without CID.

In comparing triple vs. double therapies, FF/UMEC/VI patients showed significant reductions in CID risk by 52 weeks, compared with patients treated with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. This difference was true across all subgroups, except for the subgroup of patients who were on long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) therapy prior to screening, the researchers said.

In addition, “treatment effect was greater at higher blood eosinophil counts for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CID as a primary endpoint, the relatively short 5-month follow-up period, and the use of a symptomatic patient population with an established risk of exacerbation, which could limit generalizability, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the value of preventing short-term CID and adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or bronchodilation for patients in this study population, they said.
 

Data may help drive tailored treatments

“This study is a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPACT trial, an RCT examining triple therapy vs ICS/LABA vs LABA/LAMA,” Dr. Han, lead and corresponding author, said in an interview. “In this particular paper, we conducted a treatment independent analysis examining individuals who experienced clinically important deteriorations at week 28 and then compared outcomes at week 52 based on CID status at week 28. Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52, and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID free,” she emphasized. “We also saw that FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies.” These data suggest that shorter-term changes are associated with longer term outcomes, and provide important information both for the purposes of clinical trials design as well as patient clinical assessments, she added.

Dr. Han said she was not surprised by the findings. “I think these results are consistent with prior analyses but suggest that short-term outcomes relate to longer-term ones,” she said. However, she stressed the need for individualized treatment.

“While there are relationships between symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations as demonstrated by these analyses, in any individual patient sometimes these three disease axes do not perfectly align,” she explained. Dr. Han’s main message for clinicians in practice is that optimization of triple therapy in patients with severe disease and high risk for exacerbations was associated not only with short-term improvements in symptoms and lung function, but also with longer-term reductions in exacerbations and mortality.

As for additional research, prospective studies using CID as a primary or secondary outcome would help validate the composite outcome in this study, as regulatory agencies have been slow to adopt composite outcomes, Dr. Han said.

Dr. Han disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, as well as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sunovion, Mylan, Merck, and Verona.