User login
Survey: 26% of parents hesitant about influenza vaccine
according to a nationally representative survey.
Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.
The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.
Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy
Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.
Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.
Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.
The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.
“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
Logical next step
“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
according to a nationally representative survey.
Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.
The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.
Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy
Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.
Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.
Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.
The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.
“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
Logical next step
“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
according to a nationally representative survey.
Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.
The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.
The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.
Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy
Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.
Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.
Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.
The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.
“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
Logical next step
“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Perfect storm of SARS-CoV-2 during flu season
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
Seropositivity in RA linked with doubled pneumonia incidence
from a single U.S. medical system.
“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”
The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.
His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.
Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.
The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.
“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.
from a single U.S. medical system.
“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”
The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.
His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.
Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.
The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.
“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.
from a single U.S. medical system.
“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”
The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.
His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.
Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.
The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.
“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.
FROM THE EULAR 2020 E-CONGRESS
Children with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers face sleep difficulties
, according to results from a new study.
Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.
For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.
Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.
Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.
Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.
Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.
The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.
In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”
Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.
“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.
Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.
The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.
, according to results from a new study.
Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.
For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.
Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.
Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.
Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.
Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.
The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.
In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”
Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.
“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.
Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.
The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.
, according to results from a new study.
Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.
For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.
Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.
Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.
Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.
Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.
The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.
In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”
Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.
“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.
Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.
The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Baloxavir effective, well tolerated for influenza treatment in children
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
FROM THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
No link seen between methotrexate, interstitial lung disease in RA
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.
A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.
In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.
However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.
“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”
As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
Danish nationwide study
René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.
Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)
In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).
“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”
Multinational study
Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.
Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.
Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).
Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).
“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”
“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”
The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.
SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.
A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.
In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.
However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.
“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”
As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
Danish nationwide study
René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.
Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)
In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).
“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”
Multinational study
Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.
Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.
Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).
Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).
“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”
“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”
The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.
SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.
A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.
In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.
However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.
“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”
As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
Danish nationwide study
René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.
Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)
In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).
“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”
Multinational study
Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.
Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.
Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).
Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).
“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”
“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”
The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.
SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.
FROM THE EULAR 2020 E-CONGRESS
Former smokers using e-cigarettes at risk for cigarette smoking relapse
The use of , results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.
“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).
Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.
Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).
The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.
The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.
The use of , results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.
“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).
Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.
Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).
The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.
The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.
The use of , results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.
“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).
Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.
Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).
The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.
The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
WHO clarifies comments on asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
Evolving treatment of cystic fibrosis: Path toward a normal lifespan
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point.
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point.
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point.
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
By the numbers: Asthma-COPD overlap deaths
Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.”
For females with asthma-COPD overlap, the age-adjusted death rate among adults aged 25 years and older dropped from 7.71 per million in 1999 to 4.01 in 2016, with corresponding rates of 6.70 and 3.01 per million for males, they reported.
In 1999-2016, a total of 18,766 U.S. decedents aged ≥25 years had both asthma and COPD assigned as the underlying or contributing cause of death (12,028 women and 6,738 men), for an overall death rate of 5.03 per million persons (women, 5.59; men, 4.30), data from the National Vital Statistics System show.
Additional analysis, based on the calculation of proportionate mortality ratios (PMRs), also showed that mortality varied by occupational status and age for both males and females, the investigators said, noting that workplace exposures, such as dusts and secondhand smoke, are known to cause both asthma and COPD.
The PMR represents the observed number of deaths from asthma-COPD overlap in a specified industry or occupation, divided by the expected number of deaths, so a value over 1.0 indicates that there were more deaths associated with the condition than expected, Ms. Dodd and her associates explained.
Among female decedents, the occupation with the highest PMR that was statistically significant was bartending at 3.28. For men, the highest significant PMR, 5.64, occurred in logging workers. Those rates, however, only applied to one of the two age groups: 25-64 years in women and ≥65 in men, based on data from the National Occupational Mortality Surveillance, which included information from 26 states for the years 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2007-2014.
Occupationally speaking, the one area of common ground between males and females was lack of occupation. PMRs for those aged 25-64 years “were significantly elevated among men (1.98) and women (1.79) who were unemployed, never worked, or were disabled workers,” they said. PMRs were elevated for nonworking older males and females but were not significant.
The elevated PMRs suggest “that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity resulting in loss of employment [because] retired and unemployed persons might have left the workforce because of severe asthma or COPD,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Dodd KE et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 5. 69(22):670-9.
Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.”
For females with asthma-COPD overlap, the age-adjusted death rate among adults aged 25 years and older dropped from 7.71 per million in 1999 to 4.01 in 2016, with corresponding rates of 6.70 and 3.01 per million for males, they reported.
In 1999-2016, a total of 18,766 U.S. decedents aged ≥25 years had both asthma and COPD assigned as the underlying or contributing cause of death (12,028 women and 6,738 men), for an overall death rate of 5.03 per million persons (women, 5.59; men, 4.30), data from the National Vital Statistics System show.
Additional analysis, based on the calculation of proportionate mortality ratios (PMRs), also showed that mortality varied by occupational status and age for both males and females, the investigators said, noting that workplace exposures, such as dusts and secondhand smoke, are known to cause both asthma and COPD.
The PMR represents the observed number of deaths from asthma-COPD overlap in a specified industry or occupation, divided by the expected number of deaths, so a value over 1.0 indicates that there were more deaths associated with the condition than expected, Ms. Dodd and her associates explained.
Among female decedents, the occupation with the highest PMR that was statistically significant was bartending at 3.28. For men, the highest significant PMR, 5.64, occurred in logging workers. Those rates, however, only applied to one of the two age groups: 25-64 years in women and ≥65 in men, based on data from the National Occupational Mortality Surveillance, which included information from 26 states for the years 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2007-2014.
Occupationally speaking, the one area of common ground between males and females was lack of occupation. PMRs for those aged 25-64 years “were significantly elevated among men (1.98) and women (1.79) who were unemployed, never worked, or were disabled workers,” they said. PMRs were elevated for nonworking older males and females but were not significant.
The elevated PMRs suggest “that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity resulting in loss of employment [because] retired and unemployed persons might have left the workforce because of severe asthma or COPD,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Dodd KE et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 5. 69(22):670-9.
Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.”
For females with asthma-COPD overlap, the age-adjusted death rate among adults aged 25 years and older dropped from 7.71 per million in 1999 to 4.01 in 2016, with corresponding rates of 6.70 and 3.01 per million for males, they reported.
In 1999-2016, a total of 18,766 U.S. decedents aged ≥25 years had both asthma and COPD assigned as the underlying or contributing cause of death (12,028 women and 6,738 men), for an overall death rate of 5.03 per million persons (women, 5.59; men, 4.30), data from the National Vital Statistics System show.
Additional analysis, based on the calculation of proportionate mortality ratios (PMRs), also showed that mortality varied by occupational status and age for both males and females, the investigators said, noting that workplace exposures, such as dusts and secondhand smoke, are known to cause both asthma and COPD.
The PMR represents the observed number of deaths from asthma-COPD overlap in a specified industry or occupation, divided by the expected number of deaths, so a value over 1.0 indicates that there were more deaths associated with the condition than expected, Ms. Dodd and her associates explained.
Among female decedents, the occupation with the highest PMR that was statistically significant was bartending at 3.28. For men, the highest significant PMR, 5.64, occurred in logging workers. Those rates, however, only applied to one of the two age groups: 25-64 years in women and ≥65 in men, based on data from the National Occupational Mortality Surveillance, which included information from 26 states for the years 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2007-2014.
Occupationally speaking, the one area of common ground between males and females was lack of occupation. PMRs for those aged 25-64 years “were significantly elevated among men (1.98) and women (1.79) who were unemployed, never worked, or were disabled workers,” they said. PMRs were elevated for nonworking older males and females but were not significant.
The elevated PMRs suggest “that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity resulting in loss of employment [because] retired and unemployed persons might have left the workforce because of severe asthma or COPD,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Dodd KE et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 5. 69(22):670-9.
FROM MMWR