The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.

Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.

Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.

Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.

Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.

Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.

Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.

Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.

Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.

Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.

Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.

Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.

Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, nonsmoking low-income and non-Hispanic Black people remain at high risk for exposure to smoke.

No risk-free SHS exposure

Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.

“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.

Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.

Disparities in SHS exposure

A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.

Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.

SHS exposure in private spaces

A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).

Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”

In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”

The investigators had no conflict disclosures.

Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, nonsmoking low-income and non-Hispanic Black people remain at high risk for exposure to smoke.

No risk-free SHS exposure

Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.

“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.

Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.

Disparities in SHS exposure

A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.

Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.

SHS exposure in private spaces

A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).

Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”

In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”

The investigators had no conflict disclosures.

Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, nonsmoking low-income and non-Hispanic Black people remain at high risk for exposure to smoke.

No risk-free SHS exposure

Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.

“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.

Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.

Disparities in SHS exposure

A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.

Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.

SHS exposure in private spaces

A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).

Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”

In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”

The investigators had no conflict disclosures.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

The lungs Bill Thompson was born with told a gruesome, harrowing and unmistakable tale to Dr. Anthony Szema when he analyzed them and found the black spots, scarring, partially combusted jet fuel and metal inside.

The retired Army staff sergeant had suffered catastrophic lung damage from breathing incinerated waste burned in massive open-air pits and probably other irritants during his tour of duty in Iraq.

“There’s black spots that are burns, particles all over; there’s metal. It was all scarred,” said Szema, a pulmonologist and professor who studies toxic exposures and examined Thompson’s preserved lung tissue. “There was no gas exchange anywhere in that lung.”

Thompson is still alive, surviving on his second transplanted set of lungs. Yet the story burned into the veteran’s internal organs is not one that has been entirely convincing to the U.S. government.

The military has not linked the burn pits to illness. That means many who were exposed to burn pits and are sick do not qualify for benefits under any existing program.

Retirement and health benefits for members of the military depend on factors like length of service, active or reserve status, deployments to combat zones and whether the military considers specific injuries or illnesses to be service-related. Thompson has been able to get care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for his lung disease but has not been able to secure other benefits, like early retirement pay.

“I was denied my Army retirement because if it was not a combat action, then I don’t receive that retirement,” Thompson said at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing last week on service members’ exposures to toxic substances.

Thompson is one of at least 3.5 million veterans since 2001 who have served in war zones where the U.S. military decided to dispose of its trash by burning it, according to VA estimates.

It’s not clear how many people within that population have gotten sick from exposure. Only a small fraction — 234,000 — have enrolled in the VA’s online burn pit registry. Veterans’ advocacy groups have said the majority of claims to the agency stemming from toxic exposures are denied, even as most former service members report contacts with toxins in their deployments.

Soldiers returning from tours in the global war on terror have reported debilitating illnesses almost from its beginning, but got little traction with the military. This year, though, the likelihood of congressional action is high, with Democrats expressing interest and a president who suspects burn pits are to blame for his son’s death.

President Joe Biden’s son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46. He had deployed to Iraq in two sites with burn pits — at Baghdad and Balad — around the same time Thompson was at Camp Striker, near the Baghdad airport.

“Because of exposure to burn pits — in my view, I can’t prove it yet — he came back with stage 4 glioblastoma,” Biden said in a 2019 speech.

In testimony at the March 10 hearing, Shane Liermann, who works for the group Disabled American Veterans, told the committee that 78% of burn pit claims are denied. “Part of the problem is VA is not recognizing that exposure as being toxic exposures,” Liermann said.

Aleks Morosky, with the Wounded Warrior Project, said that in his group’s survey of 28,000 veterans last year, 71% said they had “definitely” been exposed to toxic substances or hazardous chemicals, and 18% said they had “probably” been exposed. Half of those people rated their health as poor or fair. Only about 16% of the service members who believed they had suffered exposure said they got treatment from the VA, and 11% said they were denied treatment.

Thompson, who is 49, said care for his lung disease is often slow and sometimes denied. It took the VA three years to approve an air purifier for his home to filter out allergens, and the VA refused to help pay for the removal of dust-trapping carpets, he said.

Thompson’s presence at the hearing, though, was not just meant to put the spotlight on the VA. The military’s entire approach to toxic exposure is a morass that leaves ill soldiers and veterans like Thompson trying to navigate a bureaucracy more labyrinthine than the Pentagon’s corridors.

After Thompson was shipped back to Fort Stewart in Georgia, his medical ordeal was at first addressed within the military system, including a year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, where doctors found his lungs filled with titanium, magnesium, iron and silica.

Yet he said he didn’t qualify for the Army’s traumatic-injury insurance program, which might have helped him pay to retrofit his home in West Virginia. And he can’t get his military retirement pay until he’s 60.

“I may not live to be age 60. I turn 50 this year,” Thompson said.

Illustrating the problem, several officials at the hearing with the Department of Defense, the Army and the National Guard were unable to explain why Thompson — with 23 years of service between the Guard and Army — might have such a hard time qualifying for retirement benefits when the evidence of his lungs and the findings of the Army’s own doctors are so vivid and extreme.

For advocates who have been working on the problem for decades, it reminds them all too vividly of Agent Orange, which the military is still coming to grips with.

“It’s already been, since the first Persian Gulf [War] — we’re talking 30 years — and since burn pits were again active, since 2001,” said Liermann. “We’re way behind the curve here.”

Although Congress has done relatively little to deal with burn pits, many members seem to at least be thinking along the same lines. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs hearing promised to be something of a kickoff to a year when lawmakers are poised to offer a slew of bills designed to confront the military’s inability to care for service members poisoned during their deployments.

“Make no mistake about it,” said the committee chairman, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “We hold these hearings for two reasons: to gather information for the committee members and to help educate the VA that they might take action before Congress does.”

Republicans have also shown growing interest in the problem, offering targeted bills to ensure a handful of toxin-related diseases are covered by the VA.

At the hearing, conservative freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) seemed especially moved.

“We got to do a better job of taking care of our young people,” Tuberville said. “If we’re going to go to war, we got to understand we got to pay the price for it on both ends.”

There is also likely to be high-profile support and attention when revised legislation starts rolling out this spring.

The broadest bill likely to be offered was first introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate and Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) in the House in late 2019, with a boost from former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and a cadre of 9/11 responders who are turning their attention to toxic exposures.

Indeed, Ruiz and Gillibrand’s legislation is modeled in part on the 9/11 health act that passed in 2015. The burn pit bill would remove the burden of proving a service-related connection.

It would vastly simplify the lives of people like Thompson.

“I am a warrior of the United States of America. I gave my lungs for my country,” Thompson said.

He was cut off before he could finish, but his prepared remarks concluded, “Hopefully, after hearing my story, it will bring awareness for not only me but others who are battling the same or similar injuries related to burn pit exposures from Iraq or Afghanistan.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KHN's free Morning Briefing.

The lungs Bill Thompson was born with told a gruesome, harrowing and unmistakable tale to Dr. Anthony Szema when he analyzed them and found the black spots, scarring, partially combusted jet fuel and metal inside.

The retired Army staff sergeant had suffered catastrophic lung damage from breathing incinerated waste burned in massive open-air pits and probably other irritants during his tour of duty in Iraq.

“There’s black spots that are burns, particles all over; there’s metal. It was all scarred,” said Szema, a pulmonologist and professor who studies toxic exposures and examined Thompson’s preserved lung tissue. “There was no gas exchange anywhere in that lung.”

Thompson is still alive, surviving on his second transplanted set of lungs. Yet the story burned into the veteran’s internal organs is not one that has been entirely convincing to the U.S. government.

The military has not linked the burn pits to illness. That means many who were exposed to burn pits and are sick do not qualify for benefits under any existing program.

Retirement and health benefits for members of the military depend on factors like length of service, active or reserve status, deployments to combat zones and whether the military considers specific injuries or illnesses to be service-related. Thompson has been able to get care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for his lung disease but has not been able to secure other benefits, like early retirement pay.

“I was denied my Army retirement because if it was not a combat action, then I don’t receive that retirement,” Thompson said at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing last week on service members’ exposures to toxic substances.

Thompson is one of at least 3.5 million veterans since 2001 who have served in war zones where the U.S. military decided to dispose of its trash by burning it, according to VA estimates.

It’s not clear how many people within that population have gotten sick from exposure. Only a small fraction — 234,000 — have enrolled in the VA’s online burn pit registry. Veterans’ advocacy groups have said the majority of claims to the agency stemming from toxic exposures are denied, even as most former service members report contacts with toxins in their deployments.

Soldiers returning from tours in the global war on terror have reported debilitating illnesses almost from its beginning, but got little traction with the military. This year, though, the likelihood of congressional action is high, with Democrats expressing interest and a president who suspects burn pits are to blame for his son’s death.

President Joe Biden’s son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46. He had deployed to Iraq in two sites with burn pits — at Baghdad and Balad — around the same time Thompson was at Camp Striker, near the Baghdad airport.

“Because of exposure to burn pits — in my view, I can’t prove it yet — he came back with stage 4 glioblastoma,” Biden said in a 2019 speech.

In testimony at the March 10 hearing, Shane Liermann, who works for the group Disabled American Veterans, told the committee that 78% of burn pit claims are denied. “Part of the problem is VA is not recognizing that exposure as being toxic exposures,” Liermann said.

Aleks Morosky, with the Wounded Warrior Project, said that in his group’s survey of 28,000 veterans last year, 71% said they had “definitely” been exposed to toxic substances or hazardous chemicals, and 18% said they had “probably” been exposed. Half of those people rated their health as poor or fair. Only about 16% of the service members who believed they had suffered exposure said they got treatment from the VA, and 11% said they were denied treatment.

Thompson, who is 49, said care for his lung disease is often slow and sometimes denied. It took the VA three years to approve an air purifier for his home to filter out allergens, and the VA refused to help pay for the removal of dust-trapping carpets, he said.

Thompson’s presence at the hearing, though, was not just meant to put the spotlight on the VA. The military’s entire approach to toxic exposure is a morass that leaves ill soldiers and veterans like Thompson trying to navigate a bureaucracy more labyrinthine than the Pentagon’s corridors.

After Thompson was shipped back to Fort Stewart in Georgia, his medical ordeal was at first addressed within the military system, including a year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, where doctors found his lungs filled with titanium, magnesium, iron and silica.

Yet he said he didn’t qualify for the Army’s traumatic-injury insurance program, which might have helped him pay to retrofit his home in West Virginia. And he can’t get his military retirement pay until he’s 60.

“I may not live to be age 60. I turn 50 this year,” Thompson said.

Illustrating the problem, several officials at the hearing with the Department of Defense, the Army and the National Guard were unable to explain why Thompson — with 23 years of service between the Guard and Army — might have such a hard time qualifying for retirement benefits when the evidence of his lungs and the findings of the Army’s own doctors are so vivid and extreme.

For advocates who have been working on the problem for decades, it reminds them all too vividly of Agent Orange, which the military is still coming to grips with.

“It’s already been, since the first Persian Gulf [War] — we’re talking 30 years — and since burn pits were again active, since 2001,” said Liermann. “We’re way behind the curve here.”

Although Congress has done relatively little to deal with burn pits, many members seem to at least be thinking along the same lines. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs hearing promised to be something of a kickoff to a year when lawmakers are poised to offer a slew of bills designed to confront the military’s inability to care for service members poisoned during their deployments.

“Make no mistake about it,” said the committee chairman, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “We hold these hearings for two reasons: to gather information for the committee members and to help educate the VA that they might take action before Congress does.”

Republicans have also shown growing interest in the problem, offering targeted bills to ensure a handful of toxin-related diseases are covered by the VA.

At the hearing, conservative freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) seemed especially moved.

“We got to do a better job of taking care of our young people,” Tuberville said. “If we’re going to go to war, we got to understand we got to pay the price for it on both ends.”

There is also likely to be high-profile support and attention when revised legislation starts rolling out this spring.

The broadest bill likely to be offered was first introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate and Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) in the House in late 2019, with a boost from former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and a cadre of 9/11 responders who are turning their attention to toxic exposures.

Indeed, Ruiz and Gillibrand’s legislation is modeled in part on the 9/11 health act that passed in 2015. The burn pit bill would remove the burden of proving a service-related connection.

It would vastly simplify the lives of people like Thompson.

“I am a warrior of the United States of America. I gave my lungs for my country,” Thompson said.

He was cut off before he could finish, but his prepared remarks concluded, “Hopefully, after hearing my story, it will bring awareness for not only me but others who are battling the same or similar injuries related to burn pit exposures from Iraq or Afghanistan.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KHN's free Morning Briefing.

The lungs Bill Thompson was born with told a gruesome, harrowing and unmistakable tale to Dr. Anthony Szema when he analyzed them and found the black spots, scarring, partially combusted jet fuel and metal inside.

The retired Army staff sergeant had suffered catastrophic lung damage from breathing incinerated waste burned in massive open-air pits and probably other irritants during his tour of duty in Iraq.

“There’s black spots that are burns, particles all over; there’s metal. It was all scarred,” said Szema, a pulmonologist and professor who studies toxic exposures and examined Thompson’s preserved lung tissue. “There was no gas exchange anywhere in that lung.”

Thompson is still alive, surviving on his second transplanted set of lungs. Yet the story burned into the veteran’s internal organs is not one that has been entirely convincing to the U.S. government.

The military has not linked the burn pits to illness. That means many who were exposed to burn pits and are sick do not qualify for benefits under any existing program.

Retirement and health benefits for members of the military depend on factors like length of service, active or reserve status, deployments to combat zones and whether the military considers specific injuries or illnesses to be service-related. Thompson has been able to get care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for his lung disease but has not been able to secure other benefits, like early retirement pay.

“I was denied my Army retirement because if it was not a combat action, then I don’t receive that retirement,” Thompson said at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing last week on service members’ exposures to toxic substances.

Thompson is one of at least 3.5 million veterans since 2001 who have served in war zones where the U.S. military decided to dispose of its trash by burning it, according to VA estimates.

It’s not clear how many people within that population have gotten sick from exposure. Only a small fraction — 234,000 — have enrolled in the VA’s online burn pit registry. Veterans’ advocacy groups have said the majority of claims to the agency stemming from toxic exposures are denied, even as most former service members report contacts with toxins in their deployments.

Soldiers returning from tours in the global war on terror have reported debilitating illnesses almost from its beginning, but got little traction with the military. This year, though, the likelihood of congressional action is high, with Democrats expressing interest and a president who suspects burn pits are to blame for his son’s death.

President Joe Biden’s son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46. He had deployed to Iraq in two sites with burn pits — at Baghdad and Balad — around the same time Thompson was at Camp Striker, near the Baghdad airport.

“Because of exposure to burn pits — in my view, I can’t prove it yet — he came back with stage 4 glioblastoma,” Biden said in a 2019 speech.

In testimony at the March 10 hearing, Shane Liermann, who works for the group Disabled American Veterans, told the committee that 78% of burn pit claims are denied. “Part of the problem is VA is not recognizing that exposure as being toxic exposures,” Liermann said.

Aleks Morosky, with the Wounded Warrior Project, said that in his group’s survey of 28,000 veterans last year, 71% said they had “definitely” been exposed to toxic substances or hazardous chemicals, and 18% said they had “probably” been exposed. Half of those people rated their health as poor or fair. Only about 16% of the service members who believed they had suffered exposure said they got treatment from the VA, and 11% said they were denied treatment.

Thompson, who is 49, said care for his lung disease is often slow and sometimes denied. It took the VA three years to approve an air purifier for his home to filter out allergens, and the VA refused to help pay for the removal of dust-trapping carpets, he said.

Thompson’s presence at the hearing, though, was not just meant to put the spotlight on the VA. The military’s entire approach to toxic exposure is a morass that leaves ill soldiers and veterans like Thompson trying to navigate a bureaucracy more labyrinthine than the Pentagon’s corridors.

After Thompson was shipped back to Fort Stewart in Georgia, his medical ordeal was at first addressed within the military system, including a year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, where doctors found his lungs filled with titanium, magnesium, iron and silica.

Yet he said he didn’t qualify for the Army’s traumatic-injury insurance program, which might have helped him pay to retrofit his home in West Virginia. And he can’t get his military retirement pay until he’s 60.

“I may not live to be age 60. I turn 50 this year,” Thompson said.

Illustrating the problem, several officials at the hearing with the Department of Defense, the Army and the National Guard were unable to explain why Thompson — with 23 years of service between the Guard and Army — might have such a hard time qualifying for retirement benefits when the evidence of his lungs and the findings of the Army’s own doctors are so vivid and extreme.

For advocates who have been working on the problem for decades, it reminds them all too vividly of Agent Orange, which the military is still coming to grips with.

“It’s already been, since the first Persian Gulf [War] — we’re talking 30 years — and since burn pits were again active, since 2001,” said Liermann. “We’re way behind the curve here.”

Although Congress has done relatively little to deal with burn pits, many members seem to at least be thinking along the same lines. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs hearing promised to be something of a kickoff to a year when lawmakers are poised to offer a slew of bills designed to confront the military’s inability to care for service members poisoned during their deployments.

“Make no mistake about it,” said the committee chairman, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “We hold these hearings for two reasons: to gather information for the committee members and to help educate the VA that they might take action before Congress does.”

Republicans have also shown growing interest in the problem, offering targeted bills to ensure a handful of toxin-related diseases are covered by the VA.

At the hearing, conservative freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) seemed especially moved.

“We got to do a better job of taking care of our young people,” Tuberville said. “If we’re going to go to war, we got to understand we got to pay the price for it on both ends.”

There is also likely to be high-profile support and attention when revised legislation starts rolling out this spring.

The broadest bill likely to be offered was first introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate and Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) in the House in late 2019, with a boost from former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and a cadre of 9/11 responders who are turning their attention to toxic exposures.

Indeed, Ruiz and Gillibrand’s legislation is modeled in part on the 9/11 health act that passed in 2015. The burn pit bill would remove the burden of proving a service-related connection.

It would vastly simplify the lives of people like Thompson.

“I am a warrior of the United States of America. I gave my lungs for my country,” Thompson said.

He was cut off before he could finish, but his prepared remarks concluded, “Hopefully, after hearing my story, it will bring awareness for not only me but others who are battling the same or similar injuries related to burn pit exposures from Iraq or Afghanistan.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KHN's free Morning Briefing.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.