Pulmonology

John E. Parker, MD, was working at a West Virginia hospital in 2015 when a 31-year-old female patient was admitted with acute respiratory problems. A team of doctors ultimately suspected that her mysterious case of lipoid pneumonia might be related to vaping and weren’t sure they had seen anything like it before. They were intrigued enough to submit the case for presentation at the CHEST Annual Meeting that year (Chest. 2015;148:382A. doi: 10.1378/chest.2274860).

Now, almost 4 years later, federal officials have begun investigating a national outbreak of severe lung illnesses linked to vaping that has struck more than 150 patients in 16 states. In an interview, Dr. Parker, a professor of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown, described what happened.
 

Q: Can you describe what the patient’s symptoms were when she arrived?

We would view them as classic for what is getting to be called vaping-associated lung disease. She was very, very short of breath and had a cough, and we were, of course, very worried that she might have pneumonia or some other acute respiratory illness. And then she was so sick she needed to be intubated.

Q: What happens next in cases like this?

We look for things like a [hemorrhage] or an active infection. And then for lipid-containing macrophages. And then we usually start some antibiotics [and a] low-dose steroid and then support the patient with a ventilator and oxygen and nutrition. And then just kind of wait and see if any other cultures come back to prove anything different than what you might be thinking.

Early on, we just felt like it was an unusual case and may not be a common viral or bacterial infection.
 

Q: How did you figure out the cause of her lipoid pneumonia was e-cigarettes?

It’s a diagnosis of exclusion. We excluded other [options], and it became the most likely cause.

We were convinced enough that the case was submitted for [presentation at the CHEST annual meeting] and was accepted.
 

Q: Once you figured out the cause could be e-cigarettes, did you contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory agency to tell them about this?

We did not. We felt at the time that putting it in the medical literature was appropriate. And if other case reports from other parts of the country came forward, then we’d have more of a clustering of findings that might then warrant research agencies [getting a] better understanding [about] the cause of the disease.

Q: Which federal agency would you report it to, if you did?

In 2015, the FDA, of course, was still regulating cigarettes, but I don’t think the government had yet decided who would regulate vaping products. So I’m sure it was unclear who we should call.

Q: So did you or your team think this was a one-off event when you witnessed it?

We really felt that it wasn’t going to be a one-off event and that it was what we usually called in public health a “sentinel” health event … that it was an example of a respiratory illness that can be caused by this exposure and that it probably wasn’t the first case ever seen nor would it be the last.

Q: Was it the first case that you had seen at your institution?

To our knowledge it was our first case, but we are humble enough clinicians to realize we may have missed some other cases that we interpreted [as] viral pneumonia or bacterial pneumonia.

Q: Have you seen more cases since then?

I know we’ve seen a case [of alveolar hemorrhage syndrome] that we published, and in polling some colleagues, we think we’ve probably also seen [cases of] cryptogenic organizing pneumonia as well as lipoid pneumonia and acute eosinophilic pneumonia. Yeah, we’ve certainly seen at least probably four forms of lung disease from vaping.

Q: If your team was seeing this back in 2015, is it possible that it’s been happening in the four years since then and people just don’t know about it?

I really have every reason to think we were not the first ones to see it, by any means.

And I don’t think we were even the first ones to report it. I think that there were some clusters in Wisconsin and some other places in the United States. I also know that the Japanese have been very interested. They’ve probably got four or five papers at least in the medical literature about vaping-related lung injury.
 

Q: Do you have a theory of what might be causing the lipoid pneumonia cases? Do you think there may be certain chemicals that are irritants?

We need a strong multidisciplinary team to understand the real etiology and cause of lung injury from inhalation. I think it could be any number of components in the mixtures. Lungs don’t like oil, in general, and probably the most specific agent that’s been studied recently is diacetyl, which was studied in popcorn-flavoring lung disease.

Q: Have these kinds of cases changed the way you approach patients?

Yeah, we search very carefully for a history of vaping. … I think it’s quite important to understand if they might be using inhaled agents or vaping that might present new toxicities to the lung.

Q: Will these illnesses have long-term health effects?

An inhalational injury may cause an acute lung injury that’s life-threatening and that someone may survive from and have no long-term sequelae [condition]. But there also is the possibility that long-term [e-cigarette] use may cause more insidious or chronic diseases from which there may not be a full recovery.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

John E. Parker, MD, was working at a West Virginia hospital in 2015 when a 31-year-old female patient was admitted with acute respiratory problems. A team of doctors ultimately suspected that her mysterious case of lipoid pneumonia might be related to vaping and weren’t sure they had seen anything like it before. They were intrigued enough to submit the case for presentation at the CHEST Annual Meeting that year (Chest. 2015;148:382A. doi: 10.1378/chest.2274860).

Now, almost 4 years later, federal officials have begun investigating a national outbreak of severe lung illnesses linked to vaping that has struck more than 150 patients in 16 states. In an interview, Dr. Parker, a professor of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown, described what happened.
 

Q: Can you describe what the patient’s symptoms were when she arrived?

We would view them as classic for what is getting to be called vaping-associated lung disease. She was very, very short of breath and had a cough, and we were, of course, very worried that she might have pneumonia or some other acute respiratory illness. And then she was so sick she needed to be intubated.

Q: What happens next in cases like this?

We look for things like a [hemorrhage] or an active infection. And then for lipid-containing macrophages. And then we usually start some antibiotics [and a] low-dose steroid and then support the patient with a ventilator and oxygen and nutrition. And then just kind of wait and see if any other cultures come back to prove anything different than what you might be thinking.

Early on, we just felt like it was an unusual case and may not be a common viral or bacterial infection.
 

Q: How did you figure out the cause of her lipoid pneumonia was e-cigarettes?

It’s a diagnosis of exclusion. We excluded other [options], and it became the most likely cause.

We were convinced enough that the case was submitted for [presentation at the CHEST annual meeting] and was accepted.
 

Q: Once you figured out the cause could be e-cigarettes, did you contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory agency to tell them about this?

We did not. We felt at the time that putting it in the medical literature was appropriate. And if other case reports from other parts of the country came forward, then we’d have more of a clustering of findings that might then warrant research agencies [getting a] better understanding [about] the cause of the disease.

Q: Which federal agency would you report it to, if you did?

In 2015, the FDA, of course, was still regulating cigarettes, but I don’t think the government had yet decided who would regulate vaping products. So I’m sure it was unclear who we should call.

Q: So did you or your team think this was a one-off event when you witnessed it?

We really felt that it wasn’t going to be a one-off event and that it was what we usually called in public health a “sentinel” health event … that it was an example of a respiratory illness that can be caused by this exposure and that it probably wasn’t the first case ever seen nor would it be the last.

Q: Was it the first case that you had seen at your institution?

To our knowledge it was our first case, but we are humble enough clinicians to realize we may have missed some other cases that we interpreted [as] viral pneumonia or bacterial pneumonia.

Q: Have you seen more cases since then?

I know we’ve seen a case [of alveolar hemorrhage syndrome] that we published, and in polling some colleagues, we think we’ve probably also seen [cases of] cryptogenic organizing pneumonia as well as lipoid pneumonia and acute eosinophilic pneumonia. Yeah, we’ve certainly seen at least probably four forms of lung disease from vaping.

Q: If your team was seeing this back in 2015, is it possible that it’s been happening in the four years since then and people just don’t know about it?

I really have every reason to think we were not the first ones to see it, by any means.

And I don’t think we were even the first ones to report it. I think that there were some clusters in Wisconsin and some other places in the United States. I also know that the Japanese have been very interested. They’ve probably got four or five papers at least in the medical literature about vaping-related lung injury.
 

Q: Do you have a theory of what might be causing the lipoid pneumonia cases? Do you think there may be certain chemicals that are irritants?

We need a strong multidisciplinary team to understand the real etiology and cause of lung injury from inhalation. I think it could be any number of components in the mixtures. Lungs don’t like oil, in general, and probably the most specific agent that’s been studied recently is diacetyl, which was studied in popcorn-flavoring lung disease.

Q: Have these kinds of cases changed the way you approach patients?

Yeah, we search very carefully for a history of vaping. … I think it’s quite important to understand if they might be using inhaled agents or vaping that might present new toxicities to the lung.

Q: Will these illnesses have long-term health effects?

An inhalational injury may cause an acute lung injury that’s life-threatening and that someone may survive from and have no long-term sequelae [condition]. But there also is the possibility that long-term [e-cigarette] use may cause more insidious or chronic diseases from which there may not be a full recovery.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

John E. Parker, MD, was working at a West Virginia hospital in 2015 when a 31-year-old female patient was admitted with acute respiratory problems. A team of doctors ultimately suspected that her mysterious case of lipoid pneumonia might be related to vaping and weren’t sure they had seen anything like it before. They were intrigued enough to submit the case for presentation at the CHEST Annual Meeting that year (Chest. 2015;148:382A. doi: 10.1378/chest.2274860).

Now, almost 4 years later, federal officials have begun investigating a national outbreak of severe lung illnesses linked to vaping that has struck more than 150 patients in 16 states. In an interview, Dr. Parker, a professor of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown, described what happened.
 

Q: Can you describe what the patient’s symptoms were when she arrived?

We would view them as classic for what is getting to be called vaping-associated lung disease. She was very, very short of breath and had a cough, and we were, of course, very worried that she might have pneumonia or some other acute respiratory illness. And then she was so sick she needed to be intubated.

Q: What happens next in cases like this?

We look for things like a [hemorrhage] or an active infection. And then for lipid-containing macrophages. And then we usually start some antibiotics [and a] low-dose steroid and then support the patient with a ventilator and oxygen and nutrition. And then just kind of wait and see if any other cultures come back to prove anything different than what you might be thinking.

Early on, we just felt like it was an unusual case and may not be a common viral or bacterial infection.
 

Q: How did you figure out the cause of her lipoid pneumonia was e-cigarettes?

It’s a diagnosis of exclusion. We excluded other [options], and it became the most likely cause.

We were convinced enough that the case was submitted for [presentation at the CHEST annual meeting] and was accepted.
 

Q: Once you figured out the cause could be e-cigarettes, did you contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory agency to tell them about this?

We did not. We felt at the time that putting it in the medical literature was appropriate. And if other case reports from other parts of the country came forward, then we’d have more of a clustering of findings that might then warrant research agencies [getting a] better understanding [about] the cause of the disease.

Q: Which federal agency would you report it to, if you did?

In 2015, the FDA, of course, was still regulating cigarettes, but I don’t think the government had yet decided who would regulate vaping products. So I’m sure it was unclear who we should call.

Q: So did you or your team think this was a one-off event when you witnessed it?

We really felt that it wasn’t going to be a one-off event and that it was what we usually called in public health a “sentinel” health event … that it was an example of a respiratory illness that can be caused by this exposure and that it probably wasn’t the first case ever seen nor would it be the last.

Q: Was it the first case that you had seen at your institution?

To our knowledge it was our first case, but we are humble enough clinicians to realize we may have missed some other cases that we interpreted [as] viral pneumonia or bacterial pneumonia.

Q: Have you seen more cases since then?

I know we’ve seen a case [of alveolar hemorrhage syndrome] that we published, and in polling some colleagues, we think we’ve probably also seen [cases of] cryptogenic organizing pneumonia as well as lipoid pneumonia and acute eosinophilic pneumonia. Yeah, we’ve certainly seen at least probably four forms of lung disease from vaping.

Q: If your team was seeing this back in 2015, is it possible that it’s been happening in the four years since then and people just don’t know about it?

I really have every reason to think we were not the first ones to see it, by any means.

And I don’t think we were even the first ones to report it. I think that there were some clusters in Wisconsin and some other places in the United States. I also know that the Japanese have been very interested. They’ve probably got four or five papers at least in the medical literature about vaping-related lung injury.
 

Q: Do you have a theory of what might be causing the lipoid pneumonia cases? Do you think there may be certain chemicals that are irritants?

We need a strong multidisciplinary team to understand the real etiology and cause of lung injury from inhalation. I think it could be any number of components in the mixtures. Lungs don’t like oil, in general, and probably the most specific agent that’s been studied recently is diacetyl, which was studied in popcorn-flavoring lung disease.

Q: Have these kinds of cases changed the way you approach patients?

Yeah, we search very carefully for a history of vaping. … I think it’s quite important to understand if they might be using inhaled agents or vaping that might present new toxicities to the lung.

Q: Will these illnesses have long-term health effects?

An inhalational injury may cause an acute lung injury that’s life-threatening and that someone may survive from and have no long-term sequelae [condition]. But there also is the possibility that long-term [e-cigarette] use may cause more insidious or chronic diseases from which there may not be a full recovery.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Fever of unknown origin and pneumonia are two clinical features useful in distinguishing between influenza and respiratory syncytial virus infection as the cause of hospitalization in infants and young children, Cihan Papan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papan, a pediatrician at University Children’s Hospital Mannheim (Germany) and Heidelberg (Germany) University, presented a retrospective single-center study of all 573 children aged under 2 years hospitalized over the course of several seasons for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza as confirmed by rapid antigen testing. Even though these are two of the leading causes of hospitalization among young children, there is surprisingly sparse data comparing the two in terms of disease severity and hospital resource utilization, including antibiotic consumption. That information gap provided the basis for this study.

There were 476 children with confirmed RSV, 96 with influenza, and 1 RSV/influenza coinfection. Notably, even though the RSV group had lower temperatures and C-reactive protein levels, they were nevertheless more likely to be treated with antibiotics, by a margin of 29% to 23%.

“These findings open new possibilities for antimicrobial stewardship in these groups of virally infected children,” observed Dr. Papan.

Fever of unknown origin was present in 68.8% of the influenza-positive patients, compared with just 0.2% of the RSV-positive children. In contrast, 50.2% of the RSV group had pneumonia and 49.6% had bronchitis or bronchiolitis, versus just 22.9% and 6.3% of the influenza patients, respectively. A larger proportion of the young children with RSV infection presented in a severely ill–looking condition. Children with RSV infection also were significantly younger.

Dr. Papan reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Fever of unknown origin and pneumonia are two clinical features useful in distinguishing between influenza and respiratory syncytial virus infection as the cause of hospitalization in infants and young children, Cihan Papan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papan, a pediatrician at University Children’s Hospital Mannheim (Germany) and Heidelberg (Germany) University, presented a retrospective single-center study of all 573 children aged under 2 years hospitalized over the course of several seasons for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza as confirmed by rapid antigen testing. Even though these are two of the leading causes of hospitalization among young children, there is surprisingly sparse data comparing the two in terms of disease severity and hospital resource utilization, including antibiotic consumption. That information gap provided the basis for this study.

There were 476 children with confirmed RSV, 96 with influenza, and 1 RSV/influenza coinfection. Notably, even though the RSV group had lower temperatures and C-reactive protein levels, they were nevertheless more likely to be treated with antibiotics, by a margin of 29% to 23%.

“These findings open new possibilities for antimicrobial stewardship in these groups of virally infected children,” observed Dr. Papan.

Fever of unknown origin was present in 68.8% of the influenza-positive patients, compared with just 0.2% of the RSV-positive children. In contrast, 50.2% of the RSV group had pneumonia and 49.6% had bronchitis or bronchiolitis, versus just 22.9% and 6.3% of the influenza patients, respectively. A larger proportion of the young children with RSV infection presented in a severely ill–looking condition. Children with RSV infection also were significantly younger.

Dr. Papan reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Fever of unknown origin and pneumonia are two clinical features useful in distinguishing between influenza and respiratory syncytial virus infection as the cause of hospitalization in infants and young children, Cihan Papan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papan, a pediatrician at University Children’s Hospital Mannheim (Germany) and Heidelberg (Germany) University, presented a retrospective single-center study of all 573 children aged under 2 years hospitalized over the course of several seasons for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza as confirmed by rapid antigen testing. Even though these are two of the leading causes of hospitalization among young children, there is surprisingly sparse data comparing the two in terms of disease severity and hospital resource utilization, including antibiotic consumption. That information gap provided the basis for this study.

There were 476 children with confirmed RSV, 96 with influenza, and 1 RSV/influenza coinfection. Notably, even though the RSV group had lower temperatures and C-reactive protein levels, they were nevertheless more likely to be treated with antibiotics, by a margin of 29% to 23%.

“These findings open new possibilities for antimicrobial stewardship in these groups of virally infected children,” observed Dr. Papan.

Fever of unknown origin was present in 68.8% of the influenza-positive patients, compared with just 0.2% of the RSV-positive children. In contrast, 50.2% of the RSV group had pneumonia and 49.6% had bronchitis or bronchiolitis, versus just 22.9% and 6.3% of the influenza patients, respectively. A larger proportion of the young children with RSV infection presented in a severely ill–looking condition. Children with RSV infection also were significantly younger.

Dr. Papan reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

More than 150 cases of severe lung illness possibly related to e-cigarette use in adolescents and young adults have been reported in 16 states, according to an Aug. 21 update from officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are working with state health officials to gather information on the cases as well as any products or substances that might be involved.

A total of 153 potential cases were reported between June 28 and Aug. 20 in 16 states – California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Health officials have yet to find a cause for these illnesses; however, all patients have reported e-cigarette use or vaping, according to a CDC statement. Evidence to date does not seem to indicate that an infectious agent is the cause.

In general, patients have reported a gradual onset of symptoms including shortness of breath and/or chest pain that increased over days or weeks before hospital admission. Gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue have been reported by some.

Many patients reported using products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, though no specific or consistent product has been linked definitively.

While cases reported across the country seem to be similar, there is no evidence currently indicating they have a common cause, according to the CDC statement.

The CDC is urging health care professionals to report possible cases to their state or local health department and the FDA is urging the public to provide detailed reports of any unusual or unexpected health concerns related to tobacco use or e-cigarette use through its Safety Reporting Portal.

dfulton@mdedge.com

More than 150 cases of severe lung illness possibly related to e-cigarette use in adolescents and young adults have been reported in 16 states, according to an Aug. 21 update from officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are working with state health officials to gather information on the cases as well as any products or substances that might be involved.

A total of 153 potential cases were reported between June 28 and Aug. 20 in 16 states – California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Health officials have yet to find a cause for these illnesses; however, all patients have reported e-cigarette use or vaping, according to a CDC statement. Evidence to date does not seem to indicate that an infectious agent is the cause.

In general, patients have reported a gradual onset of symptoms including shortness of breath and/or chest pain that increased over days or weeks before hospital admission. Gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue have been reported by some.

Many patients reported using products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, though no specific or consistent product has been linked definitively.

While cases reported across the country seem to be similar, there is no evidence currently indicating they have a common cause, according to the CDC statement.

The CDC is urging health care professionals to report possible cases to their state or local health department and the FDA is urging the public to provide detailed reports of any unusual or unexpected health concerns related to tobacco use or e-cigarette use through its Safety Reporting Portal.

dfulton@mdedge.com

More than 150 cases of severe lung illness possibly related to e-cigarette use in adolescents and young adults have been reported in 16 states, according to an Aug. 21 update from officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are working with state health officials to gather information on the cases as well as any products or substances that might be involved.

A total of 153 potential cases were reported between June 28 and Aug. 20 in 16 states – California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Health officials have yet to find a cause for these illnesses; however, all patients have reported e-cigarette use or vaping, according to a CDC statement. Evidence to date does not seem to indicate that an infectious agent is the cause.

In general, patients have reported a gradual onset of symptoms including shortness of breath and/or chest pain that increased over days or weeks before hospital admission. Gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue have been reported by some.

Many patients reported using products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, though no specific or consistent product has been linked definitively.

While cases reported across the country seem to be similar, there is no evidence currently indicating they have a common cause, according to the CDC statement.

The CDC is urging health care professionals to report possible cases to their state or local health department and the FDA is urging the public to provide detailed reports of any unusual or unexpected health concerns related to tobacco use or e-cigarette use through its Safety Reporting Portal.

dfulton@mdedge.com

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed warnings for cigarette packs and advertisements on Aug. 15, 2019, that feature graphic, colored images illustrating the harms of smoking, but this could be subjected to legal challenge.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Several years ago, tobacco companies filed a lawsuit, which ultimately shut down a similar proposal.

The warnings focus on lesser-known complications – including diabetes, cataracts, gangrene, stroke, bladder cancer, erectile dysfunction, and obstructive pulmonary disease – and would take up the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and at least the top 20% of print advertisements. Each pack and ad would be required to carry 1 of the 13 proposed warnings, according to the announcement.

The approach would be similar to, but not as aggressive as Canada’s. For years, cigarettes packs sold in Canada have included disturbing photographs of diseased lungs, rotted teeth, and dying patients. The lasting impact of such imagery has been demonstrated in the literature (for example, Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32[3]:202-9).

The new proposal is the FDA’s second attempt to enact something comparable in the United States, after being directed to do so by the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

The first effort to add strong, illustrated warnings to cigarette packs was widely backed by medical groups, but challenged in the courts by R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies, and blocked on appeal in 2012 as an abridgment of commercial free speech. The federal government dropped the case in 2013.

The American Lung Association and other public health groups subsequently sued the FDA in 2016 to enact the Tobacco Act mandate. Subsequently, a federal judge ordered the agency to publish a new rule by August 2019, and issue a final rule in March 2020.

This time around, the FDA “took the necessary time to get these new proposed warnings right ... based on – and within the limits of – both science and the law,” the agency said. The new images, though graphic, are less disturbing than those used in Canada and the agency’s previous proposals, which included an apparent corpse with a sternotomy. The 1-800-Quit-Now cessation hotline number, which was a sticking point in the 2012 ruling, has also been dropped.

When asked about the new efforts, R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Kaelan Hollon said, “We are carefully reviewing FDA’s latest proposal for graphic warnings on cigarettes. We firmly support public awareness of the harms of smoking cigarettes, but the manner in which those messages are delivered to the public cannot run afoul of the First Amendment protections that apply to all speakers, including cigarette manufacturers.”

Warnings on U.S. cigarettes haven’t changed since 1984, when the risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and pregnancy complications were added to the side of cigarette packs. With time, the FDA said the surgeon general’s warnings have become “virtually invisible” to consumers.

The American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other plaintiffs in the 2016 suit called the new proposal a “dramatic improvement” over the current situation and “long overdue” in a joint statement on Aug. 15.

Although rates have declined substantially in recent decades, about 34.3 million U.S. adults and almost 1.4 million teenagers still smoke. The habit kills about a half million Americans every year, at a health cost of more than $300 billion, the FDA said.

Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted through Oct. 15. The agency is open to suggestions for alternative text and images.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed warnings for cigarette packs and advertisements on Aug. 15, 2019, that feature graphic, colored images illustrating the harms of smoking, but this could be subjected to legal challenge.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Several years ago, tobacco companies filed a lawsuit, which ultimately shut down a similar proposal.

The warnings focus on lesser-known complications – including diabetes, cataracts, gangrene, stroke, bladder cancer, erectile dysfunction, and obstructive pulmonary disease – and would take up the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and at least the top 20% of print advertisements. Each pack and ad would be required to carry 1 of the 13 proposed warnings, according to the announcement.

The approach would be similar to, but not as aggressive as Canada’s. For years, cigarettes packs sold in Canada have included disturbing photographs of diseased lungs, rotted teeth, and dying patients. The lasting impact of such imagery has been demonstrated in the literature (for example, Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32[3]:202-9).

The new proposal is the FDA’s second attempt to enact something comparable in the United States, after being directed to do so by the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

The first effort to add strong, illustrated warnings to cigarette packs was widely backed by medical groups, but challenged in the courts by R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies, and blocked on appeal in 2012 as an abridgment of commercial free speech. The federal government dropped the case in 2013.

The American Lung Association and other public health groups subsequently sued the FDA in 2016 to enact the Tobacco Act mandate. Subsequently, a federal judge ordered the agency to publish a new rule by August 2019, and issue a final rule in March 2020.

This time around, the FDA “took the necessary time to get these new proposed warnings right ... based on – and within the limits of – both science and the law,” the agency said. The new images, though graphic, are less disturbing than those used in Canada and the agency’s previous proposals, which included an apparent corpse with a sternotomy. The 1-800-Quit-Now cessation hotline number, which was a sticking point in the 2012 ruling, has also been dropped.

When asked about the new efforts, R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Kaelan Hollon said, “We are carefully reviewing FDA’s latest proposal for graphic warnings on cigarettes. We firmly support public awareness of the harms of smoking cigarettes, but the manner in which those messages are delivered to the public cannot run afoul of the First Amendment protections that apply to all speakers, including cigarette manufacturers.”

Warnings on U.S. cigarettes haven’t changed since 1984, when the risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and pregnancy complications were added to the side of cigarette packs. With time, the FDA said the surgeon general’s warnings have become “virtually invisible” to consumers.

The American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other plaintiffs in the 2016 suit called the new proposal a “dramatic improvement” over the current situation and “long overdue” in a joint statement on Aug. 15.

Although rates have declined substantially in recent decades, about 34.3 million U.S. adults and almost 1.4 million teenagers still smoke. The habit kills about a half million Americans every year, at a health cost of more than $300 billion, the FDA said.

Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted through Oct. 15. The agency is open to suggestions for alternative text and images.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed warnings for cigarette packs and advertisements on Aug. 15, 2019, that feature graphic, colored images illustrating the harms of smoking, but this could be subjected to legal challenge.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Several years ago, tobacco companies filed a lawsuit, which ultimately shut down a similar proposal.

The warnings focus on lesser-known complications – including diabetes, cataracts, gangrene, stroke, bladder cancer, erectile dysfunction, and obstructive pulmonary disease – and would take up the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and at least the top 20% of print advertisements. Each pack and ad would be required to carry 1 of the 13 proposed warnings, according to the announcement.

The approach would be similar to, but not as aggressive as Canada’s. For years, cigarettes packs sold in Canada have included disturbing photographs of diseased lungs, rotted teeth, and dying patients. The lasting impact of such imagery has been demonstrated in the literature (for example, Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32[3]:202-9).

The new proposal is the FDA’s second attempt to enact something comparable in the United States, after being directed to do so by the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

The first effort to add strong, illustrated warnings to cigarette packs was widely backed by medical groups, but challenged in the courts by R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies, and blocked on appeal in 2012 as an abridgment of commercial free speech. The federal government dropped the case in 2013.

The American Lung Association and other public health groups subsequently sued the FDA in 2016 to enact the Tobacco Act mandate. Subsequently, a federal judge ordered the agency to publish a new rule by August 2019, and issue a final rule in March 2020.

This time around, the FDA “took the necessary time to get these new proposed warnings right ... based on – and within the limits of – both science and the law,” the agency said. The new images, though graphic, are less disturbing than those used in Canada and the agency’s previous proposals, which included an apparent corpse with a sternotomy. The 1-800-Quit-Now cessation hotline number, which was a sticking point in the 2012 ruling, has also been dropped.

When asked about the new efforts, R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Kaelan Hollon said, “We are carefully reviewing FDA’s latest proposal for graphic warnings on cigarettes. We firmly support public awareness of the harms of smoking cigarettes, but the manner in which those messages are delivered to the public cannot run afoul of the First Amendment protections that apply to all speakers, including cigarette manufacturers.”

Warnings on U.S. cigarettes haven’t changed since 1984, when the risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and pregnancy complications were added to the side of cigarette packs. With time, the FDA said the surgeon general’s warnings have become “virtually invisible” to consumers.

The American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other plaintiffs in the 2016 suit called the new proposal a “dramatic improvement” over the current situation and “long overdue” in a joint statement on Aug. 15.

Although rates have declined substantially in recent decades, about 34.3 million U.S. adults and almost 1.4 million teenagers still smoke. The habit kills about a half million Americans every year, at a health cost of more than $300 billion, the FDA said.

Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted through Oct. 15. The agency is open to suggestions for alternative text and images.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted special approval to a new drug combo intended for the treatment of “a limited and specific population of adult patients with extensively drug resistant, treatment-intolerant or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary” tuberculosis, according to an FDA news release.

The effectiveness of the combination treatment of pretomanid tablets with bedaquiline and linezolid was shown in a clinical study of patients with extensively drug-resistant, treatment-intolerant, or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis of the lungs. Of 107 infected patients who were evaluated 6 months after the end of therapy, 95 (89%) were deemed successes, which significantly exceeded the historical success rates for treatment of extensively drug-resistant TB, the FDA reported. The trial is sponsored by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development.

The most common adverse effects reported included peripheral neuropathy, anemia, nausea, vomiting, headache, increased liver enzymes, dyspepsia, rash, visual impairment, low blood sugar, and diarrhea, according to the release.

“Multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB are public health threats due to limited treatment options. New treatments are important to meet patient national and global health needs,” stated FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, MD, PhD, in the release. She also explained that the approval marked the second time a drug was approved under the “Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs, a pathway advanced by Congress to spur development of drugs targeting infections that lack effective therapies.”

In 2016, the World Health Organization reported that there were an estimated 490,000 new cases of multidrug-resistant TB worldwide, with a smaller portion of cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, according to the release, demonstrating the need for new therapeutics.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aug. 14, 2019. News release.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted special approval to a new drug combo intended for the treatment of “a limited and specific population of adult patients with extensively drug resistant, treatment-intolerant or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary” tuberculosis, according to an FDA news release.

The effectiveness of the combination treatment of pretomanid tablets with bedaquiline and linezolid was shown in a clinical study of patients with extensively drug-resistant, treatment-intolerant, or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis of the lungs. Of 107 infected patients who were evaluated 6 months after the end of therapy, 95 (89%) were deemed successes, which significantly exceeded the historical success rates for treatment of extensively drug-resistant TB, the FDA reported. The trial is sponsored by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development.

The most common adverse effects reported included peripheral neuropathy, anemia, nausea, vomiting, headache, increased liver enzymes, dyspepsia, rash, visual impairment, low blood sugar, and diarrhea, according to the release.

“Multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB are public health threats due to limited treatment options. New treatments are important to meet patient national and global health needs,” stated FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, MD, PhD, in the release. She also explained that the approval marked the second time a drug was approved under the “Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs, a pathway advanced by Congress to spur development of drugs targeting infections that lack effective therapies.”

In 2016, the World Health Organization reported that there were an estimated 490,000 new cases of multidrug-resistant TB worldwide, with a smaller portion of cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, according to the release, demonstrating the need for new therapeutics.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aug. 14, 2019. News release.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted special approval to a new drug combo intended for the treatment of “a limited and specific population of adult patients with extensively drug resistant, treatment-intolerant or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary” tuberculosis, according to an FDA news release.

The effectiveness of the combination treatment of pretomanid tablets with bedaquiline and linezolid was shown in a clinical study of patients with extensively drug-resistant, treatment-intolerant, or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis of the lungs. Of 107 infected patients who were evaluated 6 months after the end of therapy, 95 (89%) were deemed successes, which significantly exceeded the historical success rates for treatment of extensively drug-resistant TB, the FDA reported. The trial is sponsored by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development.

The most common adverse effects reported included peripheral neuropathy, anemia, nausea, vomiting, headache, increased liver enzymes, dyspepsia, rash, visual impairment, low blood sugar, and diarrhea, according to the release.

“Multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB are public health threats due to limited treatment options. New treatments are important to meet patient national and global health needs,” stated FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, MD, PhD, in the release. She also explained that the approval marked the second time a drug was approved under the “Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs, a pathway advanced by Congress to spur development of drugs targeting infections that lack effective therapies.”

In 2016, the World Health Organization reported that there were an estimated 490,000 new cases of multidrug-resistant TB worldwide, with a smaller portion of cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, according to the release, demonstrating the need for new therapeutics.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aug. 14, 2019. News release.