Asthma

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Thunderstorm asthma can strike with little warning, leaving people with the symptoms of an asthma attack during or after the dark clouds pass. 

If you’re unfamiliar, the risk for a thunderstorm asthma attack grows when heavy storms arrive on a day with very high pollen or spores. The storm uplifts these particles, adds water, and causes them to explode into smaller grains. The electrical activity in a storm can do the same. Next, strong winds sweep these particles down and across the ground. People in the path of the storm can experience shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

If thunderstorms are predicted to become more frequent and more severe with climate change, will the same hold true for thunderstorm asthma?   

“Yes, if only because the amount of pollen appears to be increasing in many areas due to climate change,” said Frank S. Virant, MD, chief of the Allergy Division at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Most cases of thunderstorm asthma occur in the spring and early summer, but that also could change. Pollen seasons “have been getting longer and more intense,” said Shaan M. Waqar, MD, an allergist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Plainview, NY. 

“Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, but our changing environment and the increase in the number of people with allergies may make such events more common and more severe into the future,” agreed Paul J. Beggs, PhD, associate professor in the School of Natural Sciences at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

How to Minimize Your Risk

If your patients are sensitive to pollen, advise them to continue to monitor outdoor levels, particularly during tree, grass, and weed pollen season, Dr. Virant recommended. Also patients should pay attention to weather reports. Watch for thunderstorms that could “amplify exposure to the pollen with 40-plus mile per hour winds and often colder air downdrafts.” Cold is an additional asthma trigger, he noted. 

People with asthma should try to stay indoors with windows and doors closed during strong thunderstorms and for several hours afterward. Using air filters can also help reduce risk, said Deepti V. Manian, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Stormont Vail Health in Topeka, Kansas.

Patients should continue controller therapies -- such as longer-acting inhalers and allergy medications -- and use a rescue inhaler or nebulizer for prompt treatment of symptoms, recommended Donald J. Dvorin, MD, of The Allergy and Asthma Doctors in Mount Laurel, NJ. Ideally, people seeking shelter indoors during storms should be “accompanied by friends or family who can help them transport quickly to a hospital if needed.”

Asthma Diagnosis Not Required

Even peoples who would not consider themselves to have asthma can be seriously affected. For example, people with hay fever, or allergic rhinitis as it’s also known, are also at risk, said Ajay Kevat, MBBS, MPH, of the respiratory department at Queensland Children’s Hospital in Brisbane, Australia.

People with hay fever can also experience stronger symptoms during and after thunderstorms. Optimally treating allergic rhinitis during the pollen season with non-sedation antihistamines and nasal steroids can help, Dr. Virant said, instead of “chasing symptoms with medication after they are already severe.” 

Part of the challenge is connecting severe weather to worse asthma symptoms. “In my experience, there is a lack of awareness surrounding thunderstorm asthma,” Dr. Manian said. For example, people with non-allergic rhinitis, also known as vasomotor rhinitis, can also experience the effects. “It often surprises many of my patients when I introduce the concept of vasomotor rhinitis, which can be triggered by environmental fluctuations.”

Gathering Clouds, Gathering Evidence

Climate change could also change which Americans experience the most storms. Researchers in a June 2022 study predicted fewer storms in the Southern plains and more storms in the Midwest and the Southeastern United States in the future.

Dr. Dvorin practices in Southern New Jersey, and in this area, “we fortunate in this area not to experience thunderstorm-induced asthma exacerbations,” he said. 

But climate change means that in the future, thunderstorm asthma could strike in places it has never been seen before, said Dr. Kevat, who wrote a thunderstorm asthma review article published online June 2020 in the Journal of Asthma and Allergy.

And this is not just a concern in the United States. Major thunderstorm asthma events have been reported in Italy, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. In  November 2016, for instance, a strong set of storms swept across Melbourne, Australia. Temperatures dropped 10C (about 18F), humidity rose above 70%, and particulate matter like pollen became more concentrated in the air. 

This event spurred a “thunderstorm asthma epidemic of unprecedented magnitude, tempo, and geographical range and severity,” Dr. Beggs and colleagues wrote in their June 2018 report in The Lancet Planetary Health. 

Large-scale events like this can affect entire communities and quickly overwhelm local health care resources. Within 30 hours of the Melbourne storms, 3,365 people more than usual came to local emergency departments with respiratory issues — and 476 with asthma were admitted to the hospital. Ten people died: five in the hospital and five who could not be resuscitated or died while waiting for emergency services.

More research is needed “so as to best prepare for this unpredictable, significant public health threat,” Dr. Kevat wrote.

People whose asthma is triggered by pollen or mold spores are particularly at risk for thunderstorm asthma, Dr. Waqar said. If you’re unsure, an allergist can help diagnose and treat your allergic risks.

More severe thunderstorms are just one asthma trigger associated with climate change. Last summer, Canadian wildfires sent smoke across the northern U.S. and triggered widespread asthma exacerbations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com. 

Thunderstorm asthma can strike with little warning, leaving people with the symptoms of an asthma attack during or after the dark clouds pass. 

If you’re unfamiliar, the risk for a thunderstorm asthma attack grows when heavy storms arrive on a day with very high pollen or spores. The storm uplifts these particles, adds water, and causes them to explode into smaller grains. The electrical activity in a storm can do the same. Next, strong winds sweep these particles down and across the ground. People in the path of the storm can experience shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

If thunderstorms are predicted to become more frequent and more severe with climate change, will the same hold true for thunderstorm asthma?   

“Yes, if only because the amount of pollen appears to be increasing in many areas due to climate change,” said Frank S. Virant, MD, chief of the Allergy Division at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Most cases of thunderstorm asthma occur in the spring and early summer, but that also could change. Pollen seasons “have been getting longer and more intense,” said Shaan M. Waqar, MD, an allergist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Plainview, NY. 

“Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, but our changing environment and the increase in the number of people with allergies may make such events more common and more severe into the future,” agreed Paul J. Beggs, PhD, associate professor in the School of Natural Sciences at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

How to Minimize Your Risk

If your patients are sensitive to pollen, advise them to continue to monitor outdoor levels, particularly during tree, grass, and weed pollen season, Dr. Virant recommended. Also patients should pay attention to weather reports. Watch for thunderstorms that could “amplify exposure to the pollen with 40-plus mile per hour winds and often colder air downdrafts.” Cold is an additional asthma trigger, he noted. 

People with asthma should try to stay indoors with windows and doors closed during strong thunderstorms and for several hours afterward. Using air filters can also help reduce risk, said Deepti V. Manian, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Stormont Vail Health in Topeka, Kansas.

Patients should continue controller therapies -- such as longer-acting inhalers and allergy medications -- and use a rescue inhaler or nebulizer for prompt treatment of symptoms, recommended Donald J. Dvorin, MD, of The Allergy and Asthma Doctors in Mount Laurel, NJ. Ideally, people seeking shelter indoors during storms should be “accompanied by friends or family who can help them transport quickly to a hospital if needed.”

Asthma Diagnosis Not Required

Even peoples who would not consider themselves to have asthma can be seriously affected. For example, people with hay fever, or allergic rhinitis as it’s also known, are also at risk, said Ajay Kevat, MBBS, MPH, of the respiratory department at Queensland Children’s Hospital in Brisbane, Australia.

People with hay fever can also experience stronger symptoms during and after thunderstorms. Optimally treating allergic rhinitis during the pollen season with non-sedation antihistamines and nasal steroids can help, Dr. Virant said, instead of “chasing symptoms with medication after they are already severe.” 

Part of the challenge is connecting severe weather to worse asthma symptoms. “In my experience, there is a lack of awareness surrounding thunderstorm asthma,” Dr. Manian said. For example, people with non-allergic rhinitis, also known as vasomotor rhinitis, can also experience the effects. “It often surprises many of my patients when I introduce the concept of vasomotor rhinitis, which can be triggered by environmental fluctuations.”

Gathering Clouds, Gathering Evidence

Climate change could also change which Americans experience the most storms. Researchers in a June 2022 study predicted fewer storms in the Southern plains and more storms in the Midwest and the Southeastern United States in the future.

Dr. Dvorin practices in Southern New Jersey, and in this area, “we fortunate in this area not to experience thunderstorm-induced asthma exacerbations,” he said. 

But climate change means that in the future, thunderstorm asthma could strike in places it has never been seen before, said Dr. Kevat, who wrote a thunderstorm asthma review article published online June 2020 in the Journal of Asthma and Allergy.

And this is not just a concern in the United States. Major thunderstorm asthma events have been reported in Italy, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. In  November 2016, for instance, a strong set of storms swept across Melbourne, Australia. Temperatures dropped 10C (about 18F), humidity rose above 70%, and particulate matter like pollen became more concentrated in the air. 

This event spurred a “thunderstorm asthma epidemic of unprecedented magnitude, tempo, and geographical range and severity,” Dr. Beggs and colleagues wrote in their June 2018 report in The Lancet Planetary Health. 

Large-scale events like this can affect entire communities and quickly overwhelm local health care resources. Within 30 hours of the Melbourne storms, 3,365 people more than usual came to local emergency departments with respiratory issues — and 476 with asthma were admitted to the hospital. Ten people died: five in the hospital and five who could not be resuscitated or died while waiting for emergency services.

More research is needed “so as to best prepare for this unpredictable, significant public health threat,” Dr. Kevat wrote.

People whose asthma is triggered by pollen or mold spores are particularly at risk for thunderstorm asthma, Dr. Waqar said. If you’re unsure, an allergist can help diagnose and treat your allergic risks.

More severe thunderstorms are just one asthma trigger associated with climate change. Last summer, Canadian wildfires sent smoke across the northern U.S. and triggered widespread asthma exacerbations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com. 

Thunderstorm asthma can strike with little warning, leaving people with the symptoms of an asthma attack during or after the dark clouds pass. 

If you’re unfamiliar, the risk for a thunderstorm asthma attack grows when heavy storms arrive on a day with very high pollen or spores. The storm uplifts these particles, adds water, and causes them to explode into smaller grains. The electrical activity in a storm can do the same. Next, strong winds sweep these particles down and across the ground. People in the path of the storm can experience shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

If thunderstorms are predicted to become more frequent and more severe with climate change, will the same hold true for thunderstorm asthma?   

“Yes, if only because the amount of pollen appears to be increasing in many areas due to climate change,” said Frank S. Virant, MD, chief of the Allergy Division at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Most cases of thunderstorm asthma occur in the spring and early summer, but that also could change. Pollen seasons “have been getting longer and more intense,” said Shaan M. Waqar, MD, an allergist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Plainview, NY. 

“Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, but our changing environment and the increase in the number of people with allergies may make such events more common and more severe into the future,” agreed Paul J. Beggs, PhD, associate professor in the School of Natural Sciences at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

How to Minimize Your Risk

If your patients are sensitive to pollen, advise them to continue to monitor outdoor levels, particularly during tree, grass, and weed pollen season, Dr. Virant recommended. Also patients should pay attention to weather reports. Watch for thunderstorms that could “amplify exposure to the pollen with 40-plus mile per hour winds and often colder air downdrafts.” Cold is an additional asthma trigger, he noted. 

People with asthma should try to stay indoors with windows and doors closed during strong thunderstorms and for several hours afterward. Using air filters can also help reduce risk, said Deepti V. Manian, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Stormont Vail Health in Topeka, Kansas.

Patients should continue controller therapies -- such as longer-acting inhalers and allergy medications -- and use a rescue inhaler or nebulizer for prompt treatment of symptoms, recommended Donald J. Dvorin, MD, of The Allergy and Asthma Doctors in Mount Laurel, NJ. Ideally, people seeking shelter indoors during storms should be “accompanied by friends or family who can help them transport quickly to a hospital if needed.”

Asthma Diagnosis Not Required

Even peoples who would not consider themselves to have asthma can be seriously affected. For example, people with hay fever, or allergic rhinitis as it’s also known, are also at risk, said Ajay Kevat, MBBS, MPH, of the respiratory department at Queensland Children’s Hospital in Brisbane, Australia.

People with hay fever can also experience stronger symptoms during and after thunderstorms. Optimally treating allergic rhinitis during the pollen season with non-sedation antihistamines and nasal steroids can help, Dr. Virant said, instead of “chasing symptoms with medication after they are already severe.” 

Part of the challenge is connecting severe weather to worse asthma symptoms. “In my experience, there is a lack of awareness surrounding thunderstorm asthma,” Dr. Manian said. For example, people with non-allergic rhinitis, also known as vasomotor rhinitis, can also experience the effects. “It often surprises many of my patients when I introduce the concept of vasomotor rhinitis, which can be triggered by environmental fluctuations.”

Gathering Clouds, Gathering Evidence

Climate change could also change which Americans experience the most storms. Researchers in a June 2022 study predicted fewer storms in the Southern plains and more storms in the Midwest and the Southeastern United States in the future.

Dr. Dvorin practices in Southern New Jersey, and in this area, “we fortunate in this area not to experience thunderstorm-induced asthma exacerbations,” he said. 

But climate change means that in the future, thunderstorm asthma could strike in places it has never been seen before, said Dr. Kevat, who wrote a thunderstorm asthma review article published online June 2020 in the Journal of Asthma and Allergy.

And this is not just a concern in the United States. Major thunderstorm asthma events have been reported in Italy, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. In  November 2016, for instance, a strong set of storms swept across Melbourne, Australia. Temperatures dropped 10C (about 18F), humidity rose above 70%, and particulate matter like pollen became more concentrated in the air. 

This event spurred a “thunderstorm asthma epidemic of unprecedented magnitude, tempo, and geographical range and severity,” Dr. Beggs and colleagues wrote in their June 2018 report in The Lancet Planetary Health. 

Large-scale events like this can affect entire communities and quickly overwhelm local health care resources. Within 30 hours of the Melbourne storms, 3,365 people more than usual came to local emergency departments with respiratory issues — and 476 with asthma were admitted to the hospital. Ten people died: five in the hospital and five who could not be resuscitated or died while waiting for emergency services.

More research is needed “so as to best prepare for this unpredictable, significant public health threat,” Dr. Kevat wrote.

People whose asthma is triggered by pollen or mold spores are particularly at risk for thunderstorm asthma, Dr. Waqar said. If you’re unsure, an allergist can help diagnose and treat your allergic risks.

More severe thunderstorms are just one asthma trigger associated with climate change. Last summer, Canadian wildfires sent smoke across the northern U.S. and triggered widespread asthma exacerbations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com. 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs. 

Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.

The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care. 

John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.

Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
 

SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases

Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.

To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.

Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.

Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled. 

The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year. 

“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.

SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
 

Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets

With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained. 

This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote. 

However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.

On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.

“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.

Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.

This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.

Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.

Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.

Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs. 

Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.

The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care. 

John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.

Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
 

SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases

Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.

To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.

Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.

Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled. 

The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year. 

“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.

SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
 

Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets

With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained. 

This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote. 

However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.

On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.

“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.

Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.

This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.

Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.

Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.

Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs. 

Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.

The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care. 

John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.

Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
 

SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases

Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.

To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.

Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.

Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled. 

The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year. 

“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.

SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.

The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
 

Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets

With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained. 

This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote. 

However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.

On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.

“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.

Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.

This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.

Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.

Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma and COPD Section  

Remodeling of airways and destruction of parenchyma by immune and inflammatory mechanisms are the leading cause of lung function decline in patients with COPD. Type 2 inflammation has been recognized as an important phenotypic pathway in asthma. However, its role in COPD has been much less clear, which had been largely associated with innate immune response.¹

Activation of Interleukin (IL)-25, IL-33, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) produces type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, either by binding to ILC2 or by direct Th2 cells resulting in elevated eosinophils in sputum, lungs, and blood, as well as fractional exhaled nitric oxide.² The combined inflammation from this pathway underpins the pathological changes seen in airway mucosa, causing mucous hypersecretion and hyperresponsiveness.

Prior trials delineating the role of biologics, such as mepolizumab and benralizumab, showed variable results with possible benefit of add-on biologics on the annual COPD exacerbations among patients with eosinophilic phenotype of COPD.³

More recently, the BOREAS trial evaluated the role of dupilumab as an add-on therapy for patients with type 2 inflammation-driven COPD established using blood eosinophil count of at least 300/mL at initial screening.⁴ Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks combined IL-4 and IL-13 pathways with a broader effect on the type 2 inflammation. It included patients with moderate to severe exacerbations despite maximal triple inhaler therapy with blood eosinophilia. Patients with asthma were excluded. This 52-week trial showed reduction in annual moderate to severe COPD exacerbations, sustained lung function improvement as measured by prebronchodilator FEV₁, and improvement in patient-reported respiratory symptoms.⁴ Evaluation of sustainability of these results with therapy step-down approaches should be explored.

References

1. Scanlon & McKenzie, 2012.

2. Brusselle et al, 2013.

3. Pavord et al, 2017.

4. Bhatt et al, 2023.

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma and COPD Section  

Remodeling of airways and destruction of parenchyma by immune and inflammatory mechanisms are the leading cause of lung function decline in patients with COPD. Type 2 inflammation has been recognized as an important phenotypic pathway in asthma. However, its role in COPD has been much less clear, which had been largely associated with innate immune response.¹

Activation of Interleukin (IL)-25, IL-33, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) produces type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, either by binding to ILC2 or by direct Th2 cells resulting in elevated eosinophils in sputum, lungs, and blood, as well as fractional exhaled nitric oxide.² The combined inflammation from this pathway underpins the pathological changes seen in airway mucosa, causing mucous hypersecretion and hyperresponsiveness.

Prior trials delineating the role of biologics, such as mepolizumab and benralizumab, showed variable results with possible benefit of add-on biologics on the annual COPD exacerbations among patients with eosinophilic phenotype of COPD.³

More recently, the BOREAS trial evaluated the role of dupilumab as an add-on therapy for patients with type 2 inflammation-driven COPD established using blood eosinophil count of at least 300/mL at initial screening.⁴ Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks combined IL-4 and IL-13 pathways with a broader effect on the type 2 inflammation. It included patients with moderate to severe exacerbations despite maximal triple inhaler therapy with blood eosinophilia. Patients with asthma were excluded. This 52-week trial showed reduction in annual moderate to severe COPD exacerbations, sustained lung function improvement as measured by prebronchodilator FEV₁, and improvement in patient-reported respiratory symptoms.⁴ Evaluation of sustainability of these results with therapy step-down approaches should be explored.

References

1. Scanlon & McKenzie, 2012.

2. Brusselle et al, 2013.

3. Pavord et al, 2017.

4. Bhatt et al, 2023.

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma and COPD Section  

Remodeling of airways and destruction of parenchyma by immune and inflammatory mechanisms are the leading cause of lung function decline in patients with COPD. Type 2 inflammation has been recognized as an important phenotypic pathway in asthma. However, its role in COPD has been much less clear, which had been largely associated with innate immune response.¹

Activation of Interleukin (IL)-25, IL-33, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) produces type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, either by binding to ILC2 or by direct Th2 cells resulting in elevated eosinophils in sputum, lungs, and blood, as well as fractional exhaled nitric oxide.² The combined inflammation from this pathway underpins the pathological changes seen in airway mucosa, causing mucous hypersecretion and hyperresponsiveness.

Prior trials delineating the role of biologics, such as mepolizumab and benralizumab, showed variable results with possible benefit of add-on biologics on the annual COPD exacerbations among patients with eosinophilic phenotype of COPD.³

More recently, the BOREAS trial evaluated the role of dupilumab as an add-on therapy for patients with type 2 inflammation-driven COPD established using blood eosinophil count of at least 300/mL at initial screening.⁴ Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks combined IL-4 and IL-13 pathways with a broader effect on the type 2 inflammation. It included patients with moderate to severe exacerbations despite maximal triple inhaler therapy with blood eosinophilia. Patients with asthma were excluded. This 52-week trial showed reduction in annual moderate to severe COPD exacerbations, sustained lung function improvement as measured by prebronchodilator FEV₁, and improvement in patient-reported respiratory symptoms.⁴ Evaluation of sustainability of these results with therapy step-down approaches should be explored.

References

1. Scanlon & McKenzie, 2012.

2. Brusselle et al, 2013.

3. Pavord et al, 2017.

4. Bhatt et al, 2023.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.

Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. 

The new indication for immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergy in adults and children aged 1 year or older makes omalizumab the first drug approved to mitigate allergic reactions to more than one food, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.

“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release. 

The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.

More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%). 

The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.

Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. 

The new indication for immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergy in adults and children aged 1 year or older makes omalizumab the first drug approved to mitigate allergic reactions to more than one food, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.

“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release. 

The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.

More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%). 

The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.

Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. 

The new indication for immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergy in adults and children aged 1 year or older makes omalizumab the first drug approved to mitigate allergic reactions to more than one food, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.

“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release. 

The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.

More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%). 

The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with either high or low body mass index (BMI) showed an increased risk for respiratory symptoms and diseases than those with BMI in the normal range.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2003 to 2012; the study population included 12,719 adults older than 40 years with data on respiratory symptoms; 51% were female, and 53.3% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
• The study population was divided into quartiles based on BMI as follows: 3180 individuals with BMI of 13.2-24.9 kg/m², 3175 with BMI of 24.9-28.4 kg/m², 3180 with BMI of 28.4-32.5 kg/m², and 3184 with BMI of 32.5-82.0 kg/m².
• The study sought to assess the correlation between BMI and respiratory symptoms (cough, wheezing, and dyspnea), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma in unadjusted and adjusted models based on sex, race, marital status, poverty-income ratio (PIR), education level, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a logistic regression and curve fitting analysis, BMI showed a U-shaped relationship with respiratory symptoms, asthma, and COPD, with increased risk in individuals with high or low BMI than those with BMIs in the middle quartiles.
• In a stratified analysis by race, the risk for cough was significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than other races (P < .0001), and a higher BMI was associated with an increased risk for COPD in non-Hispanic Black individuals (odds ratio, 1.053; P < .0001).
• The researchers found no significant impact of biological sex on the relationship between BMI and respiratory symptoms, COPD, or asthma.
• The results support previous studies showing that a BMI that is too low can be detrimental to health.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that the risk of small airway obstruction in underweight individuals deserves more attention and that excessive wasting may also affect the prognosis of patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Yuefeng Sun of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. The study was published online on January 10, 2024, in Scientific Reports. 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional NHANES database prevented conclusions of causality, and potential confounding factors that were not accounted for could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with either high or low body mass index (BMI) showed an increased risk for respiratory symptoms and diseases than those with BMI in the normal range.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2003 to 2012; the study population included 12,719 adults older than 40 years with data on respiratory symptoms; 51% were female, and 53.3% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
• The study population was divided into quartiles based on BMI as follows: 3180 individuals with BMI of 13.2-24.9 kg/m², 3175 with BMI of 24.9-28.4 kg/m², 3180 with BMI of 28.4-32.5 kg/m², and 3184 with BMI of 32.5-82.0 kg/m².
• The study sought to assess the correlation between BMI and respiratory symptoms (cough, wheezing, and dyspnea), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma in unadjusted and adjusted models based on sex, race, marital status, poverty-income ratio (PIR), education level, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a logistic regression and curve fitting analysis, BMI showed a U-shaped relationship with respiratory symptoms, asthma, and COPD, with increased risk in individuals with high or low BMI than those with BMIs in the middle quartiles.
• In a stratified analysis by race, the risk for cough was significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than other races (P < .0001), and a higher BMI was associated with an increased risk for COPD in non-Hispanic Black individuals (odds ratio, 1.053; P < .0001).
• The researchers found no significant impact of biological sex on the relationship between BMI and respiratory symptoms, COPD, or asthma.
• The results support previous studies showing that a BMI that is too low can be detrimental to health.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that the risk of small airway obstruction in underweight individuals deserves more attention and that excessive wasting may also affect the prognosis of patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Yuefeng Sun of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. The study was published online on January 10, 2024, in Scientific Reports. 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional NHANES database prevented conclusions of causality, and potential confounding factors that were not accounted for could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with either high or low body mass index (BMI) showed an increased risk for respiratory symptoms and diseases than those with BMI in the normal range.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2003 to 2012; the study population included 12,719 adults older than 40 years with data on respiratory symptoms; 51% were female, and 53.3% were non-Hispanic White individuals.
• The study population was divided into quartiles based on BMI as follows: 3180 individuals with BMI of 13.2-24.9 kg/m², 3175 with BMI of 24.9-28.4 kg/m², 3180 with BMI of 28.4-32.5 kg/m², and 3184 with BMI of 32.5-82.0 kg/m².
• The study sought to assess the correlation between BMI and respiratory symptoms (cough, wheezing, and dyspnea), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma in unadjusted and adjusted models based on sex, race, marital status, poverty-income ratio (PIR), education level, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAY:

• In a logistic regression and curve fitting analysis, BMI showed a U-shaped relationship with respiratory symptoms, asthma, and COPD, with increased risk in individuals with high or low BMI than those with BMIs in the middle quartiles.
• In a stratified analysis by race, the risk for cough was significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than other races (P < .0001), and a higher BMI was associated with an increased risk for COPD in non-Hispanic Black individuals (odds ratio, 1.053; P < .0001).
• The researchers found no significant impact of biological sex on the relationship between BMI and respiratory symptoms, COPD, or asthma.
• The results support previous studies showing that a BMI that is too low can be detrimental to health.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that the risk of small airway obstruction in underweight individuals deserves more attention and that excessive wasting may also affect the prognosis of patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Yuefeng Sun of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. The study was published online on January 10, 2024, in Scientific Reports. 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional NHANES database prevented conclusions of causality, and potential confounding factors that were not accounted for could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.