Latest News

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Mild asthma is not benign. Underdiagnosis in children exposes them to preventable morbidity — including impaired lung growth that can lead to fixed airway obstruction and a higher lifetime risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as well as severe exacerbations and increased need for systemic corticosteroids. Experts at the 21st Francophone Allergy Congress 2026 said preserving respiratory function depends on early diagnosis and disease control.

Mild asthma is retrospectively defined as the level of treatment required to achieve and maintain disease control. It corresponds to asthma controlled with a low dose of inhaled corticosteroids or with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol as needed (Global Initiative for Asthma(GINA)/French Society of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, steps 1-2).

Mélisande Bourgoin-Heck, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatric Allergology, Armand Trousseau University Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France, emphasized a fundamental distinction: “While control is based on symptoms, exacerbations, activity limitations, and quality of life, severity corresponds to the level of treatment required to achieve this control. The term mild therefore depends on the treatment required and not solely on the frequency or intensity of symptoms.”

How to Identify It?

Clinically, asthma most often presents with wheezing, cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness, with symptoms that fluctuate in frequency and severity. Nighttime symptoms are common. Symptoms often start or worsen with viral infections, physical exertion (including after exercise), laughter, or exposure to allergens or cold air. “Symptoms are often dismissed as minor and intermittent,” the pediatrician said, “which leads to delayed diagnosis.”

That’s why recognizing risk factors is important because they help guide diagnosis: male sex, a first-degree family history of asthma, exposure to secondhand smoke, prematurity, maternal obesity, living in group settings or having school-aged siblings which raise the risk for early infections, a history of severe bronchiolitis, and an atopic tendency, demonstrated by atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, or sensitization to food and respiratory allergens.

How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index, the modified Asthma Predictive Index, and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk.

“These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma, with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.”

A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/atelectasis.

Normal Spirometry: Could Asthma Really be Ruled Out?

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) may be normal and do not rule out asthma. Spirometry can be performed around age 6 years and is often normal. “The reversibility test is a diagnostic indicator but may be negative in cases of normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁),” warned the specialist.

Provocation tests are useful in cases of doubt.

In children unable to perform a forced exhalation, spirometry is impossible or unreliable, which justifies the use of respiratory resistance measurements (starting at age 3). Several methods are then used: flow-interruption resistance (FIR) identifies bronchial obstruction with an expiratory FIR > 2 Z scores (how many SDs a result is from the predicted value for a child’s age/height/sex). Oscillometry, suitable for young children, is considered pathologic for values exceeding 150% of the predicted value. Plethysmography indicates obstruction with a Raw value > 150% of the predicted value or an sRaw value > 180%.

Interpretation is based on standards adapted to the technique and the study population, with thresholds varying by method (threshold values for PFTs, page e4).

When in Doubt, How Useful Are Biomarkers?

As a biomarker of atopy, a blood eosinophil count of at least 150/mm³ is associated with asthma symptoms and exacerbations. Specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) indicates allergic sensitization associated with asthma. Finally, elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (> 20-25 parts per billion depending on age) is associated with wheezing, corticosteroid use, and persistent asthma. The combination of atopy markers — including maternal allergy, eczema, wheezing, positive specific IgE levels, and eosinophilia — significantly increases the likelihood of asthma.

“However, when diagnostic uncertainty persists in a child younger than 5 years (absence of atopy; normal PFTs — which is common), a trial of treatment based on initial symptoms may be recommended according to GINA 2025 (Box 10-2),” explained Bourgoin-Heck.

In the presence of mild and intermittent symptoms, a short-acting bronchodilator challenge test on demand is indicated for a maximum duration of 2-3 months. This strategy applies to infrequent wheezing episodes, without the need for emergency care and therefore without any severe exacerbations, with symptoms occurring twice or less per week. Treatment consists of administering two puffs when symptoms occur (to be repeated as needed), with an assessment of improvement within 20-60 minutes. In cases of a history of a severe wheezing episode within the past year (systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visit, and hospitalization) or symptoms more than twice a week, the therapeutic trial involves long-term inhaled corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone 100 µg/d to 250 µg/d) combined with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for 2-3 months. If the response is favorable, treatment is adjusted to the minimum effective dose.

Monitoring of clinical progress relies on asthma control scores such as the Asthma Control Test, considering both parental perception and the child’s self-assessment. Because the goal in mild asthma is indeed to achieve complete control.

Mild Asthma: Behind the Triviality, Real Risks

Mild childhood asthma is the most common form of asthma. It is by no means benign and carries a risk for exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and potential long-term consequences.

Asthma is often missed — an estimated 20% of children age ≥ 6 years to 70% by age 1 year are not identified — and therefore go untreated, leading to a lower quality of life from attacks and persistent symptoms between episodes that could limit activity and disrupt sleep.

Even seemingly mild asthma is associated with a risk for severe exacerbation, including in patients with infrequent and mild symptoms.

There is also impaired lung growth, with a decrease in peak lung function and the potential for progression to fixed bronchial obstruction, which can lead to COPD. However, it has been shown that early treatment reduces chronic inflammation, limits bronchial remodeling, and prevents the decline in lung function.

In a Danish neonatal cohort 9125 infants, were followed at 1, 3, and 6 years of age and analyzed at 50 years of age via the Danish COPD patient registry, early asthma symptoms were associated with a decrease in FEV1 (-3.36%) and the FEV1/ Forced Vital Capacity ratio (-1.28), as well as an increased risk for a COPD diagnosis in adulthood (odds ratio [OR], 1.96).

Epidemiologic data confirm this: A history of asthma increases the risk of developing COPD by 10-30 times, and a reduced peak FEV1 in early adulthood is associated with an increased risk for early‑onset COPD and greater severity.

“Asthma is associated with a decline in lung function that can begin as early as infancy,” noted the pediatrician, “or even during the prenatal period, persists throughout childhood, continues into adulthood, and predisposes individuals to established bronchial obstruction.”

Early Inhaled Corticosteroids Reduced Exacerbations

In the inhaled steroid treatment as regular therapy in early asthma trial, which enrolled about 7000 adults and children and included a subgroup of 1900 children aged < 11 years with recent-onset mild asthma, inhaled budesonide was compared with placebo. Over 3 years of follow-up, the placebo group showed poorer lung function, whereas those treated with budesonide had improved FEV1 and about a 40% reduction in severe exacerbations. A partial functional “catch-up” was observed when treatment was initiated in the third year.

However, the study does not allow for conclusions regarding the very long-term prevention of functional decline, due to the lack of sufficient follow-up time.

Delayed Treatment Increases Risks

Furthermore, delayed treatment is associated with an increased use of short-acting bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids, carrying a risk for complications. The specialist warned: “Adverse effects appear after just a few courses of oral corticosteroids, notably an increased risk of fractures (odds ratio, 2.15 for low doses of prednisolone < 70 mg; OR, 3.09 for higher doses > 70 mg). These risks are real and emerge quickly.”

Another study confirms the adverse effects of oral corticosteroid therapy: A cumulative dose of 500 mg to 1000 mg (approximately four to five courses of systemic corticosteroids over a lifetime) already increases the risk. Complications include osteoporosis, diabetes, cataracts, heart failure, and pneumonia. “Cumulative exposure, even intermittent, is associated with increased morbidity, which can be prevented through appropriate management of mild asthma,” she added. “Yet it has been clearly demonstrated that inhaled therapy reduces the need for oral corticosteroids.”

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Military veterans exposed to burn pits during deployment are > 4 times higher risk for persistent cough and 3 times higher risk for dyspnea and wheezing compared with unexposed veterans. Following clinical evaluation, nearly half of veterans received diagnoses of respiratory diseases, including asthma (about 30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (about 13%), and bronchitis (about 12%). Diagnostic uncertainty remains common, with nearly one-third of symptomatic veterans still lacking a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.

METHODOLOGY:

• Focused review that proposed an assessment and monitoring strategy for deployed US military veterans with unexplained dyspnea that incorporates multidisciplinary review and patient discussion.
• Analysis included data from the Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), which evaluated respiratory symptoms in military personnel within 6 months of returning from Southwest Asia.
• Registry and survey input included Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry clinical evaluations in 24,578 veterans in addition to a survey of 479 veterans.
• Biopsy guidance emphasized case-by-case decisions after review; supporting examples include 49 symptomatic veterans undergoing high-resolution computed tomography in STAMPEDE and 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, many with normal or near normal pulmonary function tests (PFTs).

TAKEAWAY: 

• Veterans with persistent unexplained cough, dyspnea, or chest tightness for > 3 months, reduced exercise tolerance, or abnormal PFTs should be referred to a pulmonary specialist for diagnostic evaluation.
• Among 380 military personnel with chronic respiratory symptoms in STAMPEDE III, 22.9% had diagnoses of asthma, 15.0% had airway hyperreactivity, 10.8% had upper and large airways disorders, and 32.0% did not meet criteria for a specific diagnosis after extensive noninvasive testing.
• Standard testing can miss disease: among 38 veterans with biopsy-proven constrictive bronchiolitis, 19 had normal or near normal PFTs compared with the general population, despite reductions vs a historical asymptomatic military cohort.
• Long-term management centers on follow-up, with proposed PFT monitoring every 6 to 12 months in symptomatic patients even when initial findings are normal.

IN PRACTICE:

“Significant gaps remain in the provision of health care and benefits,” the authors wrote. “The assessment of veterans with suspected lung disease should be comprehensive, involving a thorough medical and exposure history, as well as PFTs and imaging.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Robert M. Tighe, MD, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina; Le Roy Torres, Burn Pits 360 in Robstown, Texas; and Robert Miller, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online in Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This article synthesizes existing literature and expert recommendations without presenting new primary data or statistical analyses. The review acknowledges that diagnosing deployment-related respiratory disorders can be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and may present months or years after deployment with variable latency. The current Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network structure does not have the capacity to evaluate the large number of veterans with respiratory disorders and is limited to those who have registered symptoms through the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

DISCLOSURES:

Writing support was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. No disclosures or conflict of interest statements for the individual authors are provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

A few days of fasting around chemotherapy sessions may improve treatment response and outcomes for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a small phase 2 trial suggests.

The study, of 36 patients with stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer, found that those randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before chemotherapy and 24 hours afterward had stronger pathologic responses to chemotherapy and longer progression-free survival than patients who ate normally during treatment.

The findings, reported at a press briefing ahead the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, hint at a straightforward measure to potentially improve patients’ outcomes.

The working theory is that short-term fasting boosts chemotherapy response by lowering insulin and IGF-1 levels, both of which are implicated in tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance, said study presenter Claudia Marchetti, MD, of Agostino Gemelli University in Rome, Italy.

Speaking at the briefing, ASCO President Eric Small, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, called the study “a great example of a very simple intervention that has benefit and can be undertaken and implemented anywhere in the world.”

“It’s not an expensive new drug,” he said, “and yet it has the potential to really have an impact on this cancer.”

Ovarian cancer affects more than 324,000 women worldwide each year and causes more than 206,000 deaths annually. Around 80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and up to 60% receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumor size and facilitate surgery.

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, patients with advanced disease still face poor outcomes. There is, Marchetti said, “an urgent need for safe, low-cost, and easily implementable strategies that can enhance treatment efficacy and improve patient prognosis.”

Given evidence on the role of insulin in tumor growth and chemotherapy response, her team hypothesized that short bouts of fasting around the time of treatment might have benefits.

To test that idea, the researchers recruited 36 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who were not candidates for primary cytoreduction. All were in good general health, with a mean age of 62 years.

All patients received 3 rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel before surgery. Prior to starting chemotherapy, half were randomly assigned to fast for 36 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy, whereas the other half ate normally throughout treatment.

Patients in the fasting group consumed no more than 350 calories per day during the fasting window. They were allowed to have unrestricted water, herbal tea, limited vegetable juice, and small amounts of light vegetable broth. (A ketogenic diet group had initially been planned but was closed early because of poor patient compliance.)

The study met its primary endpoint of change in insulin levels during chemotherapy, Marchetti reported. Baseline insulin levels were comparable between the 2 groups, but after 3 rounds of chemotherapy, they’d dipped by an average of 1.12 µIU/mL in the fasting group and increased by 9.76 µIU/mL in the control group (P = .01).

Fasting also improved clinical outcomes. Specifically, Marchetti said, 59% of fasting patients achieved a chemotherapy response score of 3 — indicating complete or near-complete tumor response before surgery — compared with 17% of patients in the control group.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fasting group, at 38 vs 24 months.

Importantly, Marchetti said, the fasting protocol was feasible, well tolerated, and safe: All patients assigned to the fasting group completed treatment, and rates of chemotherapy-related toxicities were similar between the 2 groups.

Additional analyses shed more light on the possible mechanisms underlying the fasting group’s improved outcomes: The researchers found that those patients tended to have lower levels of circulating suppressor granulocyte and monocyte populations that have been linked to tumor immune escape, which suggests, Marchetti said, fasting may have set the stage for a “more favorable immune environment” during chemotherapy.

However, she cautioned that much more research is needed. Her team is planning a larger multicenter trial to validate the current findings, and longer-term follow-up is necessary to see whether fasting ultimately impacts patients’ survival, Marchetti said.

In a statement, Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, an ASCO expert in gynecologic cancers, said these early findings are “encouraging, support earlier data, and highlight a promising area of cancer research.”

But she, too, emphasized the need for larger clinical trials to build on the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Marchetti disclosed having relationships with Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and other companies. Small disclosed having relationships with Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Teplinsky had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Drone warfare and repeated attacks on medical infrastructure are reshaping battlefield medicine in Ukraine, driving the development of underground military hospitals designed to stabilize and treat wounded soldiers close to active combat zones, rather than relying on rapid evacuation.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the World Health Organization has documented nearly 3000 attacks on healthcare facilities and violations of the Geneva Conventions that protect medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure during armed conflict.

In response, Ukraine has developed underground military hospitals designed to withstand bombardment and maintain the continuity of medical care. By combining infrastructure inherited from the Cold War with rapidly constructed new facilities, the country has managed to preserve healthcare capacity and support military operations close to the frontlines.

Underground Hospital

In September 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, in partnership with the Metinvest Group, opened Ukraine’s first underground military stabilization hospital near the front lines. The project was developed under Metinvest’s military support initiative, known as the Steel Front, which supplies protective infrastructure and equipment for frontline operations.

In addition to producing steel bunkers for these facilities, the company manufactures military support equipment, including mine clearing plows, drone protection screens, systems designed to intercept loitering munitions, armor plates, and vehicle reinforcements for frontline operations.

The underground hospital consists of six steel bunkers, each measuring 7.6 m in length and 2.5 m in diameter, with a total area of 500 m². The structures function as multifunctional units designed to maintain operational capability in high-threat environments. The facility includes ventilation, water supply, drainage, and electrical systems. During construction and installation, security measures aimed to reduce detectability and lower the risk for attack. The hospital also incorporates electronic warfare systems intended to strengthen operational protection.

The total investment reached 20 million Ukrainian hryvnias, approximately 385,000 euros. Of these, 7 million hryvnias funded medical equipment, while 13 million supported metal structures, construction materials, and infrastructure.

The hospital is equipped with oxygen concentrators, ventilators, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, surgical equipment, lighting systems, sterilizers, patient warming systems, and medical furniture. The complex includes two operating rooms, two resuscitation stations, a work area, and a staff rest area. Depending on the staffing and operational configuration, the hospital can stabilize wounded individuals and perform up to four simultaneous procedures. The design follows North Atlantic Treaty Organization standards for second-level field hospitals, designated Role/Echelon 2.

In a statement released by the Metinvest Group after the facility opened in 2024, Roman Kuzev, acting commander of the “East” medical task force, said: “This underground hospital is the best stabilization center available. This will allow us to provide medical care to over 100 patients a day, saving hundreds of lives for our heroes. I hope the number of such facilities will grow.”

Kuzev’s expectations materialized in 2025, when the Metinvest Group completed the construction of a second underground military hospital in one of the most active frontline sectors. The new facility provides greater protection and camouflage, and incorporates structural modifications based on lessons learned from the first hospital. It is buried more than 6 m underground and reinforced with additional protective layers.

The hospital includes four functional units housing surgical and stabilization areas, a delivery room, and a break area for healthcare personnel. The facility covers 350 m² and required an investment exceeding 21 million Ukrainian hryvnias.

The center can simultaneously support up to three surgical procedures of varying complexities. Military authorities supplied equipment, including high-flow infusion pumps, x-ray systems, oxygen concentrators, defibrillators, and additional devices. Medical services are provided by teams of up to 20 professionals, including orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons, anesthesiologists, surgical nurses, and nursing assistants.

 

Historic Origin

World War I marked a turning point in modern warfare by introducing technologies that increased battlefield violence to unprecedented levels. The widespread use of machine guns, poisonous gas, tanks, and trench warfare has turned the battlefield into an extremely deadly environment.

At the same time, the conflict drove advances in military medicine that continue to influence practice today, including blood transfusions, psychological support for soldiers experiencing so called “shell shock,” and the development of field hospitals and mobile medical units.

One of the earliest documented underground hospitals was established in Arras, France, where a network of preexisting tunnels known as boves was expanded by New Zealand engineers to provide Allied forces with a tactical advantage. The tunnels were designed to shelter troops in preparation for the 1917 Arras Offensive, allowing them to assemble safely without being detected by German forces.

The underground hospital in Arras, which opened in 1916, includes waiting rooms, operating rooms, rest areas, spaces accommodating up to 700 stretchers, and a morgue. It also features internal electrical and plumbing systems, making it one of the most advanced medical facilities of its time.

 

Shift in Care

The expanding use of drones on the battlefield has increased the risks linked to casualty evacuation, particularly aeromedical evacuation, reducing the effectiveness of traditional military care models. In response, Ukraine has adopted an approach centered on extended field care and the development of a decentralized medical system, supported by close collaboration with the private sector to rapidly secure resources and infrastructure.

These strategies represent a shift in military medicine toward prolonged onsite stabilization rather than rapid evacuation. The combined use of underground facilities and repurposed infrastructure has helped maintain medical capacity under high threat conditions, improving survival among wounded individuals, and strengthening healthcare system resilience during conflict, according to US Army reports.

In addition to serving as a model for this shift in military medicine, the underground hospital project received the Partnership for Sustainability Award 2025 in Ukraine from the United Nations Global Compact in the “Rebuilding Ukraine” category. The award, presented by the United Nations network that promotes corporate sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals, recognizes private sector initiatives that support postwar reconstruction and strengthen social and institutional resilience.

The project was recognized for its contribution to saving lives and strengthening medical capacity in areas affected by active hostility.

This article was translated from El Médico Interactivo on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drone warfare and repeated attacks on medical infrastructure are reshaping battlefield medicine in Ukraine, driving the development of underground military hospitals designed to stabilize and treat wounded soldiers close to active combat zones, rather than relying on rapid evacuation.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the World Health Organization has documented nearly 3000 attacks on healthcare facilities and violations of the Geneva Conventions that protect medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure during armed conflict.

In response, Ukraine has developed underground military hospitals designed to withstand bombardment and maintain the continuity of medical care. By combining infrastructure inherited from the Cold War with rapidly constructed new facilities, the country has managed to preserve healthcare capacity and support military operations close to the frontlines.

Underground Hospital

In September 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, in partnership with the Metinvest Group, opened Ukraine’s first underground military stabilization hospital near the front lines. The project was developed under Metinvest’s military support initiative, known as the Steel Front, which supplies protective infrastructure and equipment for frontline operations.

In addition to producing steel bunkers for these facilities, the company manufactures military support equipment, including mine clearing plows, drone protection screens, systems designed to intercept loitering munitions, armor plates, and vehicle reinforcements for frontline operations.

The underground hospital consists of six steel bunkers, each measuring 7.6 m in length and 2.5 m in diameter, with a total area of 500 m². The structures function as multifunctional units designed to maintain operational capability in high-threat environments. The facility includes ventilation, water supply, drainage, and electrical systems. During construction and installation, security measures aimed to reduce detectability and lower the risk for attack. The hospital also incorporates electronic warfare systems intended to strengthen operational protection.

The total investment reached 20 million Ukrainian hryvnias, approximately 385,000 euros. Of these, 7 million hryvnias funded medical equipment, while 13 million supported metal structures, construction materials, and infrastructure.

The hospital is equipped with oxygen concentrators, ventilators, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, surgical equipment, lighting systems, sterilizers, patient warming systems, and medical furniture. The complex includes two operating rooms, two resuscitation stations, a work area, and a staff rest area. Depending on the staffing and operational configuration, the hospital can stabilize wounded individuals and perform up to four simultaneous procedures. The design follows North Atlantic Treaty Organization standards for second-level field hospitals, designated Role/Echelon 2.

In a statement released by the Metinvest Group after the facility opened in 2024, Roman Kuzev, acting commander of the “East” medical task force, said: “This underground hospital is the best stabilization center available. This will allow us to provide medical care to over 100 patients a day, saving hundreds of lives for our heroes. I hope the number of such facilities will grow.”

Kuzev’s expectations materialized in 2025, when the Metinvest Group completed the construction of a second underground military hospital in one of the most active frontline sectors. The new facility provides greater protection and camouflage, and incorporates structural modifications based on lessons learned from the first hospital. It is buried more than 6 m underground and reinforced with additional protective layers.

The hospital includes four functional units housing surgical and stabilization areas, a delivery room, and a break area for healthcare personnel. The facility covers 350 m² and required an investment exceeding 21 million Ukrainian hryvnias.

The center can simultaneously support up to three surgical procedures of varying complexities. Military authorities supplied equipment, including high-flow infusion pumps, x-ray systems, oxygen concentrators, defibrillators, and additional devices. Medical services are provided by teams of up to 20 professionals, including orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons, anesthesiologists, surgical nurses, and nursing assistants.

 

Historic Origin

World War I marked a turning point in modern warfare by introducing technologies that increased battlefield violence to unprecedented levels. The widespread use of machine guns, poisonous gas, tanks, and trench warfare has turned the battlefield into an extremely deadly environment.

At the same time, the conflict drove advances in military medicine that continue to influence practice today, including blood transfusions, psychological support for soldiers experiencing so called “shell shock,” and the development of field hospitals and mobile medical units.

One of the earliest documented underground hospitals was established in Arras, France, where a network of preexisting tunnels known as boves was expanded by New Zealand engineers to provide Allied forces with a tactical advantage. The tunnels were designed to shelter troops in preparation for the 1917 Arras Offensive, allowing them to assemble safely without being detected by German forces.

The underground hospital in Arras, which opened in 1916, includes waiting rooms, operating rooms, rest areas, spaces accommodating up to 700 stretchers, and a morgue. It also features internal electrical and plumbing systems, making it one of the most advanced medical facilities of its time.

 

Shift in Care

The expanding use of drones on the battlefield has increased the risks linked to casualty evacuation, particularly aeromedical evacuation, reducing the effectiveness of traditional military care models. In response, Ukraine has adopted an approach centered on extended field care and the development of a decentralized medical system, supported by close collaboration with the private sector to rapidly secure resources and infrastructure.

These strategies represent a shift in military medicine toward prolonged onsite stabilization rather than rapid evacuation. The combined use of underground facilities and repurposed infrastructure has helped maintain medical capacity under high threat conditions, improving survival among wounded individuals, and strengthening healthcare system resilience during conflict, according to US Army reports.

In addition to serving as a model for this shift in military medicine, the underground hospital project received the Partnership for Sustainability Award 2025 in Ukraine from the United Nations Global Compact in the “Rebuilding Ukraine” category. The award, presented by the United Nations network that promotes corporate sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals, recognizes private sector initiatives that support postwar reconstruction and strengthen social and institutional resilience.

The project was recognized for its contribution to saving lives and strengthening medical capacity in areas affected by active hostility.

This article was translated from El Médico Interactivo on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drone warfare and repeated attacks on medical infrastructure are reshaping battlefield medicine in Ukraine, driving the development of underground military hospitals designed to stabilize and treat wounded soldiers close to active combat zones, rather than relying on rapid evacuation.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the World Health Organization has documented nearly 3000 attacks on healthcare facilities and violations of the Geneva Conventions that protect medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure during armed conflict.

In response, Ukraine has developed underground military hospitals designed to withstand bombardment and maintain the continuity of medical care. By combining infrastructure inherited from the Cold War with rapidly constructed new facilities, the country has managed to preserve healthcare capacity and support military operations close to the frontlines.

Underground Hospital

In September 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, in partnership with the Metinvest Group, opened Ukraine’s first underground military stabilization hospital near the front lines. The project was developed under Metinvest’s military support initiative, known as the Steel Front, which supplies protective infrastructure and equipment for frontline operations.

In addition to producing steel bunkers for these facilities, the company manufactures military support equipment, including mine clearing plows, drone protection screens, systems designed to intercept loitering munitions, armor plates, and vehicle reinforcements for frontline operations.

The underground hospital consists of six steel bunkers, each measuring 7.6 m in length and 2.5 m in diameter, with a total area of 500 m². The structures function as multifunctional units designed to maintain operational capability in high-threat environments. The facility includes ventilation, water supply, drainage, and electrical systems. During construction and installation, security measures aimed to reduce detectability and lower the risk for attack. The hospital also incorporates electronic warfare systems intended to strengthen operational protection.

The total investment reached 20 million Ukrainian hryvnias, approximately 385,000 euros. Of these, 7 million hryvnias funded medical equipment, while 13 million supported metal structures, construction materials, and infrastructure.

The hospital is equipped with oxygen concentrators, ventilators, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, surgical equipment, lighting systems, sterilizers, patient warming systems, and medical furniture. The complex includes two operating rooms, two resuscitation stations, a work area, and a staff rest area. Depending on the staffing and operational configuration, the hospital can stabilize wounded individuals and perform up to four simultaneous procedures. The design follows North Atlantic Treaty Organization standards for second-level field hospitals, designated Role/Echelon 2.

In a statement released by the Metinvest Group after the facility opened in 2024, Roman Kuzev, acting commander of the “East” medical task force, said: “This underground hospital is the best stabilization center available. This will allow us to provide medical care to over 100 patients a day, saving hundreds of lives for our heroes. I hope the number of such facilities will grow.”

Kuzev’s expectations materialized in 2025, when the Metinvest Group completed the construction of a second underground military hospital in one of the most active frontline sectors. The new facility provides greater protection and camouflage, and incorporates structural modifications based on lessons learned from the first hospital. It is buried more than 6 m underground and reinforced with additional protective layers.

The hospital includes four functional units housing surgical and stabilization areas, a delivery room, and a break area for healthcare personnel. The facility covers 350 m² and required an investment exceeding 21 million Ukrainian hryvnias.

The center can simultaneously support up to three surgical procedures of varying complexities. Military authorities supplied equipment, including high-flow infusion pumps, x-ray systems, oxygen concentrators, defibrillators, and additional devices. Medical services are provided by teams of up to 20 professionals, including orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons, anesthesiologists, surgical nurses, and nursing assistants.

 

Historic Origin

World War I marked a turning point in modern warfare by introducing technologies that increased battlefield violence to unprecedented levels. The widespread use of machine guns, poisonous gas, tanks, and trench warfare has turned the battlefield into an extremely deadly environment.

At the same time, the conflict drove advances in military medicine that continue to influence practice today, including blood transfusions, psychological support for soldiers experiencing so called “shell shock,” and the development of field hospitals and mobile medical units.

One of the earliest documented underground hospitals was established in Arras, France, where a network of preexisting tunnels known as boves was expanded by New Zealand engineers to provide Allied forces with a tactical advantage. The tunnels were designed to shelter troops in preparation for the 1917 Arras Offensive, allowing them to assemble safely without being detected by German forces.

The underground hospital in Arras, which opened in 1916, includes waiting rooms, operating rooms, rest areas, spaces accommodating up to 700 stretchers, and a morgue. It also features internal electrical and plumbing systems, making it one of the most advanced medical facilities of its time.

 

Shift in Care

The expanding use of drones on the battlefield has increased the risks linked to casualty evacuation, particularly aeromedical evacuation, reducing the effectiveness of traditional military care models. In response, Ukraine has adopted an approach centered on extended field care and the development of a decentralized medical system, supported by close collaboration with the private sector to rapidly secure resources and infrastructure.

These strategies represent a shift in military medicine toward prolonged onsite stabilization rather than rapid evacuation. The combined use of underground facilities and repurposed infrastructure has helped maintain medical capacity under high threat conditions, improving survival among wounded individuals, and strengthening healthcare system resilience during conflict, according to US Army reports.

In addition to serving as a model for this shift in military medicine, the underground hospital project received the Partnership for Sustainability Award 2025 in Ukraine from the United Nations Global Compact in the “Rebuilding Ukraine” category. The award, presented by the United Nations network that promotes corporate sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals, recognizes private sector initiatives that support postwar reconstruction and strengthen social and institutional resilience.

The project was recognized for its contribution to saving lives and strengthening medical capacity in areas affected by active hostility.

This article was translated from El Médico Interactivo on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately about 1 in 4 eligible Americans are up to date on their lung cancer screening, according to a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine, prompting a need for clinicians to simplify referrals and scheduling of annual appointments.

Despite a 32% increase in lung cancer screening between 2022 and 2024, rates overall remain low at nearly 25%, and especially among patients between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%; P < .05).

Determining eligibility entails calculating the total years a patient smoked cigarettes, whereas other screenings are based solely on age, such as breast cancer and colon cancer.

Some clinicians “will get into trying to do an actual pack year calculation, or where they smoked half a pack for this many years, and then they quit for this many years, and then, you know, they’re trying to do this massive calculation. And the reality is, we’re just trying to get a patient who’s at high risk for lung cancer” in for screening, said Timothy Mullett, MD, a thoracic surgeon and medical director of the Markey Cancer Center Network Development, University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky, who helped the study authors.

As the second most common form of the disease, lung cancer is the leading cause of such mortality in the US. But low rates of screening mean opportunities for early detection are missed.

In an analysis of national survey data including 26,104 patients (45.6% women and 54.4% men) eligible for lung cancer screening between ages 50 and 79 years, rates increased from 18.49% to 24.49% (P < .05) over a 2-year period starting in 2022. 

Approximately one quarter of men and women were up to date on their screening (P < .05). Nearly one third of patients aged 65 years or older were up to date, whereas those between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%), 55 and 59 years (19.45%), and 60 and 64 years (23.99%) showed lower rates.

Patients were most likely to be up to date on their screenings in the Northeast region of the country, with Massachusetts showing the highest prevalence rate (38.36%). The rate was lowest in South Dakota (13.43%).

No significant changes in rates were observed for Asian, Black, or Hispanic adults. Adults who were American Indian or Alaska native showed the largest improvement, from 18.74% in 2022 to 30.8% in 2024 (P < .05).

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual screening starting at age 50 for individuals who are current smokers or previous smokers who have a history of consuming at least a pack a day for two decades. Previous smokers must have quit within the previous 15 years to qualify.

Making these calculations can be tricky, Mullett said. Patients’ tobacco use can change over time and a screening tool may not account for those changes. He encourages clinicians to take time to ask patients for more detail about their history. For instance, someone who smokes a half a pack a day now may not immediately qualify for screening, but deeper probing might reveal that they previously smoked two packs a day.

Tamatha Hughes, RN, a nurse navigator for the Missouri Baptist Lung Cancer Screening Program, Missouri Baptist Medical Center in St. Louis, said she often calms fears and corrects misinformation when scheduling patients for their first screening. Some patients think the screening involves an MRI or that radiation from the CT scan is dangerous.

“We go through explaining it as simple as possible,” she said.

If she has a referral for a patient who does not move forward with scheduling, she said she will try them again a few weeks later. Annual screenings are scheduled at a patient’s first appointment, and she said her clinic has an 80% rate for returning patients.

Getting the first scan is the biggest hurdle. Many patients feel stigma or associate lung cancer with a hopeless diagnosis, which can reduce rates, Mullet said.

“There’s a sense of fatalism, because all they’ve ever experienced with lung cancer has been someone who’s died from lung cancer, their grandmother, their grandfather, died of lung cancer. And historically, lung cancer has been found in late stages over 80% of the time,” he said. But screening has drastically improved rates of survival.

“We keep trying to tell patients that this is not your grandfather’s lung cancer,” Mullett said. “This is not what you saw in your family growing up, and we can find it early and we can treat it, and we even if we find it late, we have better treatments now.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the William Stamps Farish Endowed Chair in Cancer Research, and the CDC. Mullett and Hughes reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Kelsey Mesmer, PhD, is a freelance journalist and journalism professor at Saint Louis University in St. Louis.

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

Approximately about 1 in 4 eligible Americans are up to date on their lung cancer screening, according to a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine, prompting a need for clinicians to simplify referrals and scheduling of annual appointments.

Despite a 32% increase in lung cancer screening between 2022 and 2024, rates overall remain low at nearly 25%, and especially among patients between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%; P < .05).

Determining eligibility entails calculating the total years a patient smoked cigarettes, whereas other screenings are based solely on age, such as breast cancer and colon cancer.

Some clinicians “will get into trying to do an actual pack year calculation, or where they smoked half a pack for this many years, and then they quit for this many years, and then, you know, they’re trying to do this massive calculation. And the reality is, we’re just trying to get a patient who’s at high risk for lung cancer” in for screening, said Timothy Mullett, MD, a thoracic surgeon and medical director of the Markey Cancer Center Network Development, University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky, who helped the study authors.

As the second most common form of the disease, lung cancer is the leading cause of such mortality in the US. But low rates of screening mean opportunities for early detection are missed.

In an analysis of national survey data including 26,104 patients (45.6% women and 54.4% men) eligible for lung cancer screening between ages 50 and 79 years, rates increased from 18.49% to 24.49% (P < .05) over a 2-year period starting in 2022. 

Approximately one quarter of men and women were up to date on their screening (P < .05). Nearly one third of patients aged 65 years or older were up to date, whereas those between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%), 55 and 59 years (19.45%), and 60 and 64 years (23.99%) showed lower rates.

Patients were most likely to be up to date on their screenings in the Northeast region of the country, with Massachusetts showing the highest prevalence rate (38.36%). The rate was lowest in South Dakota (13.43%).

No significant changes in rates were observed for Asian, Black, or Hispanic adults. Adults who were American Indian or Alaska native showed the largest improvement, from 18.74% in 2022 to 30.8% in 2024 (P < .05).

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual screening starting at age 50 for individuals who are current smokers or previous smokers who have a history of consuming at least a pack a day for two decades. Previous smokers must have quit within the previous 15 years to qualify.

Making these calculations can be tricky, Mullett said. Patients’ tobacco use can change over time and a screening tool may not account for those changes. He encourages clinicians to take time to ask patients for more detail about their history. For instance, someone who smokes a half a pack a day now may not immediately qualify for screening, but deeper probing might reveal that they previously smoked two packs a day.

Tamatha Hughes, RN, a nurse navigator for the Missouri Baptist Lung Cancer Screening Program, Missouri Baptist Medical Center in St. Louis, said she often calms fears and corrects misinformation when scheduling patients for their first screening. Some patients think the screening involves an MRI or that radiation from the CT scan is dangerous.

“We go through explaining it as simple as possible,” she said.

If she has a referral for a patient who does not move forward with scheduling, she said she will try them again a few weeks later. Annual screenings are scheduled at a patient’s first appointment, and she said her clinic has an 80% rate for returning patients.

Getting the first scan is the biggest hurdle. Many patients feel stigma or associate lung cancer with a hopeless diagnosis, which can reduce rates, Mullet said.

“There’s a sense of fatalism, because all they’ve ever experienced with lung cancer has been someone who’s died from lung cancer, their grandmother, their grandfather, died of lung cancer. And historically, lung cancer has been found in late stages over 80% of the time,” he said. But screening has drastically improved rates of survival.

“We keep trying to tell patients that this is not your grandfather’s lung cancer,” Mullett said. “This is not what you saw in your family growing up, and we can find it early and we can treat it, and we even if we find it late, we have better treatments now.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the William Stamps Farish Endowed Chair in Cancer Research, and the CDC. Mullett and Hughes reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Kelsey Mesmer, PhD, is a freelance journalist and journalism professor at Saint Louis University in St. Louis.

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

Approximately about 1 in 4 eligible Americans are up to date on their lung cancer screening, according to a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine, prompting a need for clinicians to simplify referrals and scheduling of annual appointments.

Despite a 32% increase in lung cancer screening between 2022 and 2024, rates overall remain low at nearly 25%, and especially among patients between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%; P < .05).

Determining eligibility entails calculating the total years a patient smoked cigarettes, whereas other screenings are based solely on age, such as breast cancer and colon cancer.

Some clinicians “will get into trying to do an actual pack year calculation, or where they smoked half a pack for this many years, and then they quit for this many years, and then, you know, they’re trying to do this massive calculation. And the reality is, we’re just trying to get a patient who’s at high risk for lung cancer” in for screening, said Timothy Mullett, MD, a thoracic surgeon and medical director of the Markey Cancer Center Network Development, University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky, who helped the study authors.

As the second most common form of the disease, lung cancer is the leading cause of such mortality in the US. But low rates of screening mean opportunities for early detection are missed.

In an analysis of national survey data including 26,104 patients (45.6% women and 54.4% men) eligible for lung cancer screening between ages 50 and 79 years, rates increased from 18.49% to 24.49% (P < .05) over a 2-year period starting in 2022. 

Approximately one quarter of men and women were up to date on their screening (P < .05). Nearly one third of patients aged 65 years or older were up to date, whereas those between ages 50 and 54 years (11.32%), 55 and 59 years (19.45%), and 60 and 64 years (23.99%) showed lower rates.

Patients were most likely to be up to date on their screenings in the Northeast region of the country, with Massachusetts showing the highest prevalence rate (38.36%). The rate was lowest in South Dakota (13.43%).

No significant changes in rates were observed for Asian, Black, or Hispanic adults. Adults who were American Indian or Alaska native showed the largest improvement, from 18.74% in 2022 to 30.8% in 2024 (P < .05).

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual screening starting at age 50 for individuals who are current smokers or previous smokers who have a history of consuming at least a pack a day for two decades. Previous smokers must have quit within the previous 15 years to qualify.

Making these calculations can be tricky, Mullett said. Patients’ tobacco use can change over time and a screening tool may not account for those changes. He encourages clinicians to take time to ask patients for more detail about their history. For instance, someone who smokes a half a pack a day now may not immediately qualify for screening, but deeper probing might reveal that they previously smoked two packs a day.

Tamatha Hughes, RN, a nurse navigator for the Missouri Baptist Lung Cancer Screening Program, Missouri Baptist Medical Center in St. Louis, said she often calms fears and corrects misinformation when scheduling patients for their first screening. Some patients think the screening involves an MRI or that radiation from the CT scan is dangerous.

“We go through explaining it as simple as possible,” she said.

If she has a referral for a patient who does not move forward with scheduling, she said she will try them again a few weeks later. Annual screenings are scheduled at a patient’s first appointment, and she said her clinic has an 80% rate for returning patients.

Getting the first scan is the biggest hurdle. Many patients feel stigma or associate lung cancer with a hopeless diagnosis, which can reduce rates, Mullet said.

“There’s a sense of fatalism, because all they’ve ever experienced with lung cancer has been someone who’s died from lung cancer, their grandmother, their grandfather, died of lung cancer. And historically, lung cancer has been found in late stages over 80% of the time,” he said. But screening has drastically improved rates of survival.

“We keep trying to tell patients that this is not your grandfather’s lung cancer,” Mullett said. “This is not what you saw in your family growing up, and we can find it early and we can treat it, and we even if we find it late, we have better treatments now.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the William Stamps Farish Endowed Chair in Cancer Research, and the CDC. Mullett and Hughes reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Kelsey Mesmer, PhD, is a freelance journalist and journalism professor at Saint Louis University in St. Louis.

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