Pulmonology

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Over the past 20 years, patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen next to no improvement in problems of delayed care because of cost or unaffordable medications, despite wider insurance coverage since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a new analysis shows.

The long-view analysis illuminates the ongoing problem for people with these chronic diseases despite health care legislation that was considered historic.

“That long-term scope puts recent improvements in better context – whereas we have made improvements in coverage in recent years due to the Affordable Care Act, the longer-term picture is that people with asthma and COPD are struggling to obtain needed medical care and medications despite a substantial reduction in the uninsurance rate,” said Adam Gaffney, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston who authored the paper with David Himmelstein, MD, professor of public health at City University of New York–Hunter College. The findings were published in Chest.

Researchers examined data from 1997 to 2018 for 76,843 adults with asthma and 30,548 adults with COPD, from the National Health Interview Survey, an annual survey by the Centers for Disease Control that is based on in-person interviews and health questionnaires completed by an adult in each family.
 

Insurance coverage up, patients losing ground

During 1997 and 2018, there was an overall 9.3% decrease in the rate of adults with asthma who were uninsured, a significant improvement (P < .001). Between the pre- and post-ACA years, there was modest improvement in those putting off care because of cost, a drop of 3.8%, or going without prescriptions, a drop of 4.0%. But those improvements didn’t correspond to the 7.2% drop in the uninsured rate after the AC , contributing to the finding that there was no significant improvement over the 20 years.

For adults with COPD, it was a slightly different story. Over those 2 decades, the uninsured rate dropped by 9.5%. But the number of patients foregoing care due to cost actually rose by 3.4%, which wasn’t statistically significant, but the rate of those unable to afford needed medications rose significantly by 7.8%.

Researchers found there was improvement between the pre- and post-ACA years among COPD patients putting off care and going without medications (decreases of 6.9% and 4.5%, respectively). That adhered fairly closely with the improvement in the uninsured rate, which fell by 7.1%. But over the 20-year study period, the percentage of those needing medications they couldn’t afford increased significantly by 7.8%. The rate of those delaying or foregoing care also increased, though this amount was not statistically significant.

After the ACA was created, Blacks and Hispanics with asthma had greater improvement in obtaining insurance, compared with other racial and ethnic groups. But over the 20 years, like all racial and ethnic groups, they saw no statistically significant improvement in rates of “inadequate coverage,” defined in this study as either being uninsured, having to delay care because of cost, or being unable to afford needed medications.

For those with COPD, only Whites had statistically significant improvement in the number of patients with inadequate coverage after the ACA, researchers found.

So despite obtaining insurance, patients lost ground in managing their disease because of the growing cost of care and medication.

“Medication affordability has actually worsened for those with COPD – a worrisome development given that medication nonadherence worsens outcomes for these vulnerable patients,” Dr. Gaffney said. “Policy makers should return to the issue of national health care reform. Both uninsurance and underinsurance undermines pulmonologists’ ability to care for their patients with chronic disease. A health care system without financial barriers, in contrast, might well improve these patients’ outcomes, and advance health equity.”
 

Insurance is no guarantee to access

Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, said it’s not surprising that access to care remains a problem despite the Affordable Care Act.

“It covers the hospitalizations and ER visits – patients in this segment of society were getting cared for there anyway,” he said. “And what the ACA didn’t always do was provide adequate prescription coverage or cover these outpatient gaps. So even though the patients have the ACA they still have unaffordable prescriptions, they still can’t buy them, and they still can’t pay for their outpatient clinic if they have a $500 or $1,000 deductible.” These patients also continue to struggle with more fundamental issues that affect access to care, such as lack of transportation and poor health literacy.

At Henry Ford, pharmacists work with patients to identify medications covered by their insurance and work to find discounts and coupons, he said. As for the ACA, “it’s a good first start, but we really need to identify what its limitations are.” Locally driven, less expensive solutions might be a better way forward than costly federal initiatives.

Brandon M. Seay, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep specialist at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said the findings dovetail with what he has seen in the pediatric population.

“From my experience, the ACA has helped patients get their foot in the door and has helped patients decrease the possibility of serious financial burden in emergency situations, but the ability to afford medications has not changed very much,” he said. When patients struggle with sufficient prescription coverage, he helps patients fight for coverage and connects them with prescription assistance programs such as GoodRx.

“Instead of focusing on the access of insurance to patients, the goal of the system should be to make care as affordable as possible,” Dr. Seay said. “Access does not meet the needs of a patient if they cannot afford what they have access to. Transition to a nationalized health system where there is no question of access could help to drive down prescription drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies more adequately by removing the ‘middle man’ of the private insurance industry.”

The investigators reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Seay reported no financial conflicts.

Over the past 20 years, patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen next to no improvement in problems of delayed care because of cost or unaffordable medications, despite wider insurance coverage since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a new analysis shows.

The long-view analysis illuminates the ongoing problem for people with these chronic diseases despite health care legislation that was considered historic.

“That long-term scope puts recent improvements in better context – whereas we have made improvements in coverage in recent years due to the Affordable Care Act, the longer-term picture is that people with asthma and COPD are struggling to obtain needed medical care and medications despite a substantial reduction in the uninsurance rate,” said Adam Gaffney, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston who authored the paper with David Himmelstein, MD, professor of public health at City University of New York–Hunter College. The findings were published in Chest.

Researchers examined data from 1997 to 2018 for 76,843 adults with asthma and 30,548 adults with COPD, from the National Health Interview Survey, an annual survey by the Centers for Disease Control that is based on in-person interviews and health questionnaires completed by an adult in each family.
 

Insurance coverage up, patients losing ground

During 1997 and 2018, there was an overall 9.3% decrease in the rate of adults with asthma who were uninsured, a significant improvement (P < .001). Between the pre- and post-ACA years, there was modest improvement in those putting off care because of cost, a drop of 3.8%, or going without prescriptions, a drop of 4.0%. But those improvements didn’t correspond to the 7.2% drop in the uninsured rate after the AC , contributing to the finding that there was no significant improvement over the 20 years.

For adults with COPD, it was a slightly different story. Over those 2 decades, the uninsured rate dropped by 9.5%. But the number of patients foregoing care due to cost actually rose by 3.4%, which wasn’t statistically significant, but the rate of those unable to afford needed medications rose significantly by 7.8%.

Researchers found there was improvement between the pre- and post-ACA years among COPD patients putting off care and going without medications (decreases of 6.9% and 4.5%, respectively). That adhered fairly closely with the improvement in the uninsured rate, which fell by 7.1%. But over the 20-year study period, the percentage of those needing medications they couldn’t afford increased significantly by 7.8%. The rate of those delaying or foregoing care also increased, though this amount was not statistically significant.

After the ACA was created, Blacks and Hispanics with asthma had greater improvement in obtaining insurance, compared with other racial and ethnic groups. But over the 20 years, like all racial and ethnic groups, they saw no statistically significant improvement in rates of “inadequate coverage,” defined in this study as either being uninsured, having to delay care because of cost, or being unable to afford needed medications.

For those with COPD, only Whites had statistically significant improvement in the number of patients with inadequate coverage after the ACA, researchers found.

So despite obtaining insurance, patients lost ground in managing their disease because of the growing cost of care and medication.

“Medication affordability has actually worsened for those with COPD – a worrisome development given that medication nonadherence worsens outcomes for these vulnerable patients,” Dr. Gaffney said. “Policy makers should return to the issue of national health care reform. Both uninsurance and underinsurance undermines pulmonologists’ ability to care for their patients with chronic disease. A health care system without financial barriers, in contrast, might well improve these patients’ outcomes, and advance health equity.”
 

Insurance is no guarantee to access

Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, said it’s not surprising that access to care remains a problem despite the Affordable Care Act.

“It covers the hospitalizations and ER visits – patients in this segment of society were getting cared for there anyway,” he said. “And what the ACA didn’t always do was provide adequate prescription coverage or cover these outpatient gaps. So even though the patients have the ACA they still have unaffordable prescriptions, they still can’t buy them, and they still can’t pay for their outpatient clinic if they have a $500 or $1,000 deductible.” These patients also continue to struggle with more fundamental issues that affect access to care, such as lack of transportation and poor health literacy.

At Henry Ford, pharmacists work with patients to identify medications covered by their insurance and work to find discounts and coupons, he said. As for the ACA, “it’s a good first start, but we really need to identify what its limitations are.” Locally driven, less expensive solutions might be a better way forward than costly federal initiatives.

Brandon M. Seay, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep specialist at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said the findings dovetail with what he has seen in the pediatric population.

“From my experience, the ACA has helped patients get their foot in the door and has helped patients decrease the possibility of serious financial burden in emergency situations, but the ability to afford medications has not changed very much,” he said. When patients struggle with sufficient prescription coverage, he helps patients fight for coverage and connects them with prescription assistance programs such as GoodRx.

“Instead of focusing on the access of insurance to patients, the goal of the system should be to make care as affordable as possible,” Dr. Seay said. “Access does not meet the needs of a patient if they cannot afford what they have access to. Transition to a nationalized health system where there is no question of access could help to drive down prescription drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies more adequately by removing the ‘middle man’ of the private insurance industry.”

The investigators reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Seay reported no financial conflicts.

Over the past 20 years, patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen next to no improvement in problems of delayed care because of cost or unaffordable medications, despite wider insurance coverage since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a new analysis shows.

The long-view analysis illuminates the ongoing problem for people with these chronic diseases despite health care legislation that was considered historic.

“That long-term scope puts recent improvements in better context – whereas we have made improvements in coverage in recent years due to the Affordable Care Act, the longer-term picture is that people with asthma and COPD are struggling to obtain needed medical care and medications despite a substantial reduction in the uninsurance rate,” said Adam Gaffney, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston who authored the paper with David Himmelstein, MD, professor of public health at City University of New York–Hunter College. The findings were published in Chest.

Researchers examined data from 1997 to 2018 for 76,843 adults with asthma and 30,548 adults with COPD, from the National Health Interview Survey, an annual survey by the Centers for Disease Control that is based on in-person interviews and health questionnaires completed by an adult in each family.
 

Insurance coverage up, patients losing ground

During 1997 and 2018, there was an overall 9.3% decrease in the rate of adults with asthma who were uninsured, a significant improvement (P < .001). Between the pre- and post-ACA years, there was modest improvement in those putting off care because of cost, a drop of 3.8%, or going without prescriptions, a drop of 4.0%. But those improvements didn’t correspond to the 7.2% drop in the uninsured rate after the AC , contributing to the finding that there was no significant improvement over the 20 years.

For adults with COPD, it was a slightly different story. Over those 2 decades, the uninsured rate dropped by 9.5%. But the number of patients foregoing care due to cost actually rose by 3.4%, which wasn’t statistically significant, but the rate of those unable to afford needed medications rose significantly by 7.8%.

Researchers found there was improvement between the pre- and post-ACA years among COPD patients putting off care and going without medications (decreases of 6.9% and 4.5%, respectively). That adhered fairly closely with the improvement in the uninsured rate, which fell by 7.1%. But over the 20-year study period, the percentage of those needing medications they couldn’t afford increased significantly by 7.8%. The rate of those delaying or foregoing care also increased, though this amount was not statistically significant.

After the ACA was created, Blacks and Hispanics with asthma had greater improvement in obtaining insurance, compared with other racial and ethnic groups. But over the 20 years, like all racial and ethnic groups, they saw no statistically significant improvement in rates of “inadequate coverage,” defined in this study as either being uninsured, having to delay care because of cost, or being unable to afford needed medications.

For those with COPD, only Whites had statistically significant improvement in the number of patients with inadequate coverage after the ACA, researchers found.

So despite obtaining insurance, patients lost ground in managing their disease because of the growing cost of care and medication.

“Medication affordability has actually worsened for those with COPD – a worrisome development given that medication nonadherence worsens outcomes for these vulnerable patients,” Dr. Gaffney said. “Policy makers should return to the issue of national health care reform. Both uninsurance and underinsurance undermines pulmonologists’ ability to care for their patients with chronic disease. A health care system without financial barriers, in contrast, might well improve these patients’ outcomes, and advance health equity.”
 

Insurance is no guarantee to access

Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, said it’s not surprising that access to care remains a problem despite the Affordable Care Act.

“It covers the hospitalizations and ER visits – patients in this segment of society were getting cared for there anyway,” he said. “And what the ACA didn’t always do was provide adequate prescription coverage or cover these outpatient gaps. So even though the patients have the ACA they still have unaffordable prescriptions, they still can’t buy them, and they still can’t pay for their outpatient clinic if they have a $500 or $1,000 deductible.” These patients also continue to struggle with more fundamental issues that affect access to care, such as lack of transportation and poor health literacy.

At Henry Ford, pharmacists work with patients to identify medications covered by their insurance and work to find discounts and coupons, he said. As for the ACA, “it’s a good first start, but we really need to identify what its limitations are.” Locally driven, less expensive solutions might be a better way forward than costly federal initiatives.

Brandon M. Seay, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep specialist at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said the findings dovetail with what he has seen in the pediatric population.

“From my experience, the ACA has helped patients get their foot in the door and has helped patients decrease the possibility of serious financial burden in emergency situations, but the ability to afford medications has not changed very much,” he said. When patients struggle with sufficient prescription coverage, he helps patients fight for coverage and connects them with prescription assistance programs such as GoodRx.

“Instead of focusing on the access of insurance to patients, the goal of the system should be to make care as affordable as possible,” Dr. Seay said. “Access does not meet the needs of a patient if they cannot afford what they have access to. Transition to a nationalized health system where there is no question of access could help to drive down prescription drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies more adequately by removing the ‘middle man’ of the private insurance industry.”

The investigators reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Seay reported no financial conflicts.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first device to help reduce snoring and mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that is used during the day while the patient is awake.

eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.

The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.

The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.

OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.

The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.

The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.

Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.

In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.

The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.

Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said. 

The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.

The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first device to help reduce snoring and mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that is used during the day while the patient is awake.

eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.

The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.

The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.

OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.

The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.

The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.

Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.

In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.

The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.

Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said. 

The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.

The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first device to help reduce snoring and mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that is used during the day while the patient is awake.

eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.

The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.

The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.

OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.

The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.

The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.

Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.

In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.

The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.

Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said. 

The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.

The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.

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