Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined by airway obstruction and alveolar damage caused by exposure to noxious air particles. The physiologic results include varying degrees of gas-exchange abnormality and mechanical respiratory limitation, often in the form of dynamic hyperinflation. There’s a third major contributor, though – skeletal muscle deconditioning. Only one of these abnormalities responds to inhalers.

When your patients with COPD report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, what do you do? Do you attempt to determine its character to pinpoint its origin? Do you quiz them about their baseline activity levels to quantify their conditioning? I bet you get right to the point and order a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). That way you’ll be able to tease out all the contributors. Nah. Most likely you add an inhaler before continuing to rush through your COPD quality metrics: Vaccines? Check. Lung cancer screening? Check. Smoking cessation? Check.

The physiology of dyspnea and exercise limitation in COPD has been extensively studied. Work-of-breathing, dynamic hyperinflation, and gas-exchange inefficiencies interact with each other in complex ways to produce symptoms. The presence of deconditioning simply magnifies the existing abnormalities within the respiratory system by creating more strain at lower work rates. Acute exacerbations (AECOPD) and oral corticosteroids further aggravate skeletal muscle dysfunction.

The Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) Report directs clinicians to use inhalers to manage dyspnea. If they’re already on one inhaler, they get another. This continues until they’re stabilized on a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The GOLD report also advises pulmonary rehabilitation for any patient with grade B through D disease. Unfortunately, the pulmonary rehabilitation recommendation is buried in the text and doesn’t appear within the popularized pharmacologic algorithms in the report’s figures.

The data for adding inhalers on top of each other to reduce AECOPD and improve overall quality of life (QOL) are good. However, although GOLD tells us to keep adding inhalers for the dyspneic patient with COPD, the authors acknowledge that this hasn’t been systematically tested. It’s important to remember that GOLD is a “statement” as opposed to a clinical practice guideline. The difference? A statement doesn’t require the same formal, rigorous scientific analysis known as the GRADE approach. Using this kind of analysis, a recent clinical practice guideline by the American Thoracic Society found no benefit in dyspnea or respiratory QOL with step-up from inhaler monotherapy.

Inhalers won’t do anything for gas-exchange inefficiencies and deconditioning, at least not directly. A recent CPET study from the CanCOLD network found ventilatory inefficiency in 23% of GOLD 1 and 26% of GOLD 2-4 COPD patients. The numbers were higher for those who reported dyspnea. Skeletal muscle dysfunction rates are equally high.

Thus, dyspnea and exercise intolerance are major determinants of QOL in COPD, but inhalers will only get you so far. At a minimum, make sure you get an activity/exercise history from your patients with COPD. For those who are sedentary, provide an exercise prescription (really, it’s not that hard to do). If dyspnea persists despite LABA or LAMA monotherapy, clarify the complaint before doubling down. Finally, try to get the patient into a good pulmonary rehabilitation program. They’ll thank you afterwards.

Dr. Holley is Associate Professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, both in Bethesda, Md. He reported receiving research grants from Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined by airway obstruction and alveolar damage caused by exposure to noxious air particles. The physiologic results include varying degrees of gas-exchange abnormality and mechanical respiratory limitation, often in the form of dynamic hyperinflation. There’s a third major contributor, though – skeletal muscle deconditioning. Only one of these abnormalities responds to inhalers.

When your patients with COPD report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, what do you do? Do you attempt to determine its character to pinpoint its origin? Do you quiz them about their baseline activity levels to quantify their conditioning? I bet you get right to the point and order a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). That way you’ll be able to tease out all the contributors. Nah. Most likely you add an inhaler before continuing to rush through your COPD quality metrics: Vaccines? Check. Lung cancer screening? Check. Smoking cessation? Check.

The physiology of dyspnea and exercise limitation in COPD has been extensively studied. Work-of-breathing, dynamic hyperinflation, and gas-exchange inefficiencies interact with each other in complex ways to produce symptoms. The presence of deconditioning simply magnifies the existing abnormalities within the respiratory system by creating more strain at lower work rates. Acute exacerbations (AECOPD) and oral corticosteroids further aggravate skeletal muscle dysfunction.

The Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) Report directs clinicians to use inhalers to manage dyspnea. If they’re already on one inhaler, they get another. This continues until they’re stabilized on a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The GOLD report also advises pulmonary rehabilitation for any patient with grade B through D disease. Unfortunately, the pulmonary rehabilitation recommendation is buried in the text and doesn’t appear within the popularized pharmacologic algorithms in the report’s figures.

The data for adding inhalers on top of each other to reduce AECOPD and improve overall quality of life (QOL) are good. However, although GOLD tells us to keep adding inhalers for the dyspneic patient with COPD, the authors acknowledge that this hasn’t been systematically tested. It’s important to remember that GOLD is a “statement” as opposed to a clinical practice guideline. The difference? A statement doesn’t require the same formal, rigorous scientific analysis known as the GRADE approach. Using this kind of analysis, a recent clinical practice guideline by the American Thoracic Society found no benefit in dyspnea or respiratory QOL with step-up from inhaler monotherapy.

Inhalers won’t do anything for gas-exchange inefficiencies and deconditioning, at least not directly. A recent CPET study from the CanCOLD network found ventilatory inefficiency in 23% of GOLD 1 and 26% of GOLD 2-4 COPD patients. The numbers were higher for those who reported dyspnea. Skeletal muscle dysfunction rates are equally high.

Thus, dyspnea and exercise intolerance are major determinants of QOL in COPD, but inhalers will only get you so far. At a minimum, make sure you get an activity/exercise history from your patients with COPD. For those who are sedentary, provide an exercise prescription (really, it’s not that hard to do). If dyspnea persists despite LABA or LAMA monotherapy, clarify the complaint before doubling down. Finally, try to get the patient into a good pulmonary rehabilitation program. They’ll thank you afterwards.

Dr. Holley is Associate Professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, both in Bethesda, Md. He reported receiving research grants from Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined by airway obstruction and alveolar damage caused by exposure to noxious air particles. The physiologic results include varying degrees of gas-exchange abnormality and mechanical respiratory limitation, often in the form of dynamic hyperinflation. There’s a third major contributor, though – skeletal muscle deconditioning. Only one of these abnormalities responds to inhalers.

When your patients with COPD report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, what do you do? Do you attempt to determine its character to pinpoint its origin? Do you quiz them about their baseline activity levels to quantify their conditioning? I bet you get right to the point and order a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). That way you’ll be able to tease out all the contributors. Nah. Most likely you add an inhaler before continuing to rush through your COPD quality metrics: Vaccines? Check. Lung cancer screening? Check. Smoking cessation? Check.

The physiology of dyspnea and exercise limitation in COPD has been extensively studied. Work-of-breathing, dynamic hyperinflation, and gas-exchange inefficiencies interact with each other in complex ways to produce symptoms. The presence of deconditioning simply magnifies the existing abnormalities within the respiratory system by creating more strain at lower work rates. Acute exacerbations (AECOPD) and oral corticosteroids further aggravate skeletal muscle dysfunction.

The Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) Report directs clinicians to use inhalers to manage dyspnea. If they’re already on one inhaler, they get another. This continues until they’re stabilized on a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The GOLD report also advises pulmonary rehabilitation for any patient with grade B through D disease. Unfortunately, the pulmonary rehabilitation recommendation is buried in the text and doesn’t appear within the popularized pharmacologic algorithms in the report’s figures.

The data for adding inhalers on top of each other to reduce AECOPD and improve overall quality of life (QOL) are good. However, although GOLD tells us to keep adding inhalers for the dyspneic patient with COPD, the authors acknowledge that this hasn’t been systematically tested. It’s important to remember that GOLD is a “statement” as opposed to a clinical practice guideline. The difference? A statement doesn’t require the same formal, rigorous scientific analysis known as the GRADE approach. Using this kind of analysis, a recent clinical practice guideline by the American Thoracic Society found no benefit in dyspnea or respiratory QOL with step-up from inhaler monotherapy.

Inhalers won’t do anything for gas-exchange inefficiencies and deconditioning, at least not directly. A recent CPET study from the CanCOLD network found ventilatory inefficiency in 23% of GOLD 1 and 26% of GOLD 2-4 COPD patients. The numbers were higher for those who reported dyspnea. Skeletal muscle dysfunction rates are equally high.

Thus, dyspnea and exercise intolerance are major determinants of QOL in COPD, but inhalers will only get you so far. At a minimum, make sure you get an activity/exercise history from your patients with COPD. For those who are sedentary, provide an exercise prescription (really, it’s not that hard to do). If dyspnea persists despite LABA or LAMA monotherapy, clarify the complaint before doubling down. Finally, try to get the patient into a good pulmonary rehabilitation program. They’ll thank you afterwards.

Dr. Holley is Associate Professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, both in Bethesda, Md. He reported receiving research grants from Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Lung disease as an adverse effect of the targeted cancer drug trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd, Enhertu) is not negligible, although the benefit-to-risk relationship with use of the drug is still positive, say researchers who report a review of early clinical trials with the drug.

T-DXd is a monoclonal antibody that targets HER2. It is approved for use in HER2-positive breast, gastric, and lung cancers.

In the new study, investigators analyzed data from early clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancers who had been heavily pretreated. They found an incidence of just over 15% for interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis associated with the drug. Most patients (77.4%) had grade 1 or 2 ILD, but 2.2% of patients had grade 5 ILD.

“Interstitial lung disease is a known risk factor in patients treated with antibody conjugates for cancer,” commented lead author Charles Powell, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This adverse effect can lead to lung fibrosis and can become severe, life threatening, and even fatal, the authors warned.

The authors also discussed management of the event, which involves corticosteroids, and recommended that any patient who develops ILD of grade 3 or higher be hospitalized.

Close monitoring and proactive management may reduce the risk of ILD, they suggested.

Indeed, the incidence of this adverse effect was lower in a later phase 3 trial of the drug (10.5% in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial) and that the adverse events were less severe in this patient population (none of these events were of grade 4 or 5).

“Increased knowledge ... and implementation of ILD/pneumonitis monitoring, diagnosis, and management guidelines” may have resulted in this adverse effect being identified early and treated before it progressed, they commented.

ILD is highlighted in a boxed warning on the product label.

The study was published online in ESMO Open.

In their review, the investigators evaluated nine early-stage monotherapy clinical trials (phases 1 and 2) involving a total of 1,150 patients (breast cancer, 44.3%; gastric cancer, 25.6%; lung cancer, 17.7%; colorectal cancer, 9.3%, other cancers, 3.0%).

These patients had advanced cancer and had been heavily pretreated with a median of four prior lines of therapy. They received one or more doses of at least 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd.

Nearly half of the cohort were treated for more than 6 months. A total of 276 potential ILD/pneumonitis events were sent for adjudication; of those, 85% were adjudicated as ILD/pneumonitis.

The overall incidence of adjudicated ILD/pneumonitis events was 15.4%; most were low-grade events. Some 87% of patients experienced their first ILD event within 12 months of treatment. The median time to experiencing an ILD/pneumonitis event was 5.4 months.

Some of the patients who developed grade 1 ILD/pneumonitis were treated and the adverse event resolved. These patients were then rechallenged with the drug. Only 3 of the 47 rechallenged patients experienced recurrence of ILD/pneumonitis, the authors noted.

“Rechallenge with T-DXd after complete resolution of grade 1 events is possible and warrants further investigation,” they commented. They cautioned, however, that rechallenge is not recommended for all patients, at least not for those with grade 2 or higher ILD/pneumonitis.

Overall, the authors concluded that the “benefit-risk of T-DXd treatment is positive,” but they warned that some patients may be at increased risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis

Baseline factors that increase the risk of developing an ILD/pneumonitis event include the following: being younger than 65 years, receiving a T-DXd dose of more than6.4 mg/kg, having a baseline oxygen saturation level of less than 95%, having moderate to severe renal impairment, and having lung comorbidities. In addition, patients who had initially been diagnosed with cancer more than 4 years before receiving the drug were at higher risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis.

“Using learnings from the early clinical trials experience, physician education and patient management protocols were revised and disseminated by the study sponsors [and] more recent trial data in earlier lines of therapy has demonstrated lower rates of ILD events, suggesting close monitoring and proactive management of ILD/pneumonitis is warranted for all patients,” Dr. Powell said in a statement.

The T-DXd clinical trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Powell has received fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Voluntis.

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

Lung disease as an adverse effect of the targeted cancer drug trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd, Enhertu) is not negligible, although the benefit-to-risk relationship with use of the drug is still positive, say researchers who report a review of early clinical trials with the drug.

T-DXd is a monoclonal antibody that targets HER2. It is approved for use in HER2-positive breast, gastric, and lung cancers.

In the new study, investigators analyzed data from early clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancers who had been heavily pretreated. They found an incidence of just over 15% for interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis associated with the drug. Most patients (77.4%) had grade 1 or 2 ILD, but 2.2% of patients had grade 5 ILD.

“Interstitial lung disease is a known risk factor in patients treated with antibody conjugates for cancer,” commented lead author Charles Powell, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This adverse effect can lead to lung fibrosis and can become severe, life threatening, and even fatal, the authors warned.

The authors also discussed management of the event, which involves corticosteroids, and recommended that any patient who develops ILD of grade 3 or higher be hospitalized.

Close monitoring and proactive management may reduce the risk of ILD, they suggested.

Indeed, the incidence of this adverse effect was lower in a later phase 3 trial of the drug (10.5% in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial) and that the adverse events were less severe in this patient population (none of these events were of grade 4 or 5).

“Increased knowledge ... and implementation of ILD/pneumonitis monitoring, diagnosis, and management guidelines” may have resulted in this adverse effect being identified early and treated before it progressed, they commented.

ILD is highlighted in a boxed warning on the product label.

The study was published online in ESMO Open.

In their review, the investigators evaluated nine early-stage monotherapy clinical trials (phases 1 and 2) involving a total of 1,150 patients (breast cancer, 44.3%; gastric cancer, 25.6%; lung cancer, 17.7%; colorectal cancer, 9.3%, other cancers, 3.0%).

These patients had advanced cancer and had been heavily pretreated with a median of four prior lines of therapy. They received one or more doses of at least 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd.

Nearly half of the cohort were treated for more than 6 months. A total of 276 potential ILD/pneumonitis events were sent for adjudication; of those, 85% were adjudicated as ILD/pneumonitis.

The overall incidence of adjudicated ILD/pneumonitis events was 15.4%; most were low-grade events. Some 87% of patients experienced their first ILD event within 12 months of treatment. The median time to experiencing an ILD/pneumonitis event was 5.4 months.

Some of the patients who developed grade 1 ILD/pneumonitis were treated and the adverse event resolved. These patients were then rechallenged with the drug. Only 3 of the 47 rechallenged patients experienced recurrence of ILD/pneumonitis, the authors noted.

“Rechallenge with T-DXd after complete resolution of grade 1 events is possible and warrants further investigation,” they commented. They cautioned, however, that rechallenge is not recommended for all patients, at least not for those with grade 2 or higher ILD/pneumonitis.

Overall, the authors concluded that the “benefit-risk of T-DXd treatment is positive,” but they warned that some patients may be at increased risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis

Baseline factors that increase the risk of developing an ILD/pneumonitis event include the following: being younger than 65 years, receiving a T-DXd dose of more than6.4 mg/kg, having a baseline oxygen saturation level of less than 95%, having moderate to severe renal impairment, and having lung comorbidities. In addition, patients who had initially been diagnosed with cancer more than 4 years before receiving the drug were at higher risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis.

“Using learnings from the early clinical trials experience, physician education and patient management protocols were revised and disseminated by the study sponsors [and] more recent trial data in earlier lines of therapy has demonstrated lower rates of ILD events, suggesting close monitoring and proactive management of ILD/pneumonitis is warranted for all patients,” Dr. Powell said in a statement.

The T-DXd clinical trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Powell has received fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Voluntis.

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

Lung disease as an adverse effect of the targeted cancer drug trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd, Enhertu) is not negligible, although the benefit-to-risk relationship with use of the drug is still positive, say researchers who report a review of early clinical trials with the drug.

T-DXd is a monoclonal antibody that targets HER2. It is approved for use in HER2-positive breast, gastric, and lung cancers.

In the new study, investigators analyzed data from early clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancers who had been heavily pretreated. They found an incidence of just over 15% for interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis associated with the drug. Most patients (77.4%) had grade 1 or 2 ILD, but 2.2% of patients had grade 5 ILD.

“Interstitial lung disease is a known risk factor in patients treated with antibody conjugates for cancer,” commented lead author Charles Powell, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This adverse effect can lead to lung fibrosis and can become severe, life threatening, and even fatal, the authors warned.

The authors also discussed management of the event, which involves corticosteroids, and recommended that any patient who develops ILD of grade 3 or higher be hospitalized.

Close monitoring and proactive management may reduce the risk of ILD, they suggested.

Indeed, the incidence of this adverse effect was lower in a later phase 3 trial of the drug (10.5% in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial) and that the adverse events were less severe in this patient population (none of these events were of grade 4 or 5).

“Increased knowledge ... and implementation of ILD/pneumonitis monitoring, diagnosis, and management guidelines” may have resulted in this adverse effect being identified early and treated before it progressed, they commented.

ILD is highlighted in a boxed warning on the product label.

The study was published online in ESMO Open.

In their review, the investigators evaluated nine early-stage monotherapy clinical trials (phases 1 and 2) involving a total of 1,150 patients (breast cancer, 44.3%; gastric cancer, 25.6%; lung cancer, 17.7%; colorectal cancer, 9.3%, other cancers, 3.0%).

These patients had advanced cancer and had been heavily pretreated with a median of four prior lines of therapy. They received one or more doses of at least 5.4 mg/kg of T-DXd.

Nearly half of the cohort were treated for more than 6 months. A total of 276 potential ILD/pneumonitis events were sent for adjudication; of those, 85% were adjudicated as ILD/pneumonitis.

The overall incidence of adjudicated ILD/pneumonitis events was 15.4%; most were low-grade events. Some 87% of patients experienced their first ILD event within 12 months of treatment. The median time to experiencing an ILD/pneumonitis event was 5.4 months.

Some of the patients who developed grade 1 ILD/pneumonitis were treated and the adverse event resolved. These patients were then rechallenged with the drug. Only 3 of the 47 rechallenged patients experienced recurrence of ILD/pneumonitis, the authors noted.

“Rechallenge with T-DXd after complete resolution of grade 1 events is possible and warrants further investigation,” they commented. They cautioned, however, that rechallenge is not recommended for all patients, at least not for those with grade 2 or higher ILD/pneumonitis.

Overall, the authors concluded that the “benefit-risk of T-DXd treatment is positive,” but they warned that some patients may be at increased risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis

Baseline factors that increase the risk of developing an ILD/pneumonitis event include the following: being younger than 65 years, receiving a T-DXd dose of more than6.4 mg/kg, having a baseline oxygen saturation level of less than 95%, having moderate to severe renal impairment, and having lung comorbidities. In addition, patients who had initially been diagnosed with cancer more than 4 years before receiving the drug were at higher risk of developing ILD/pneumonitis.

“Using learnings from the early clinical trials experience, physician education and patient management protocols were revised and disseminated by the study sponsors [and] more recent trial data in earlier lines of therapy has demonstrated lower rates of ILD events, suggesting close monitoring and proactive management of ILD/pneumonitis is warranted for all patients,” Dr. Powell said in a statement.

The T-DXd clinical trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Powell has received fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Voluntis.

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

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

The battle was just beginning for Le Roy Torres and his wife, Rosie, when the Army captain returned to Texas in 2008, already starting to suffer from the toxic substances he’d inhaled from the 10-acre burn pit at Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq.

Along the way, Le Roy would lose the job he loved as a Texas state trooper and take his fight all the way to a Supreme Court victory. He would be rushed to the emergency room hundreds of times, be denied health benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs for years, attempt suicide, and seek experimental cures for the damage done to his lungs and brain.

Amid all that, Le Roy and Rosie founded an organization to help others and push Congress to fix the laws that allowed the suffering of veterans to go on, and ultimately enlist people like comedian and activist Jon Stewart, who helped them win a dramatic showdown in the Senate last week.

Their struggle will never really be over. But the Torreses’ campaign to make sure no other veterans experience what they had to ends Aug. 10, when they are set to join President Joe Biden as he signs a law to guarantee that 3.5 million American warriors exposed to similar hazards can get care.

“I mean, to think that 13 years ago we were walking the halls [of Congress] — it’s really emotional,” Rosie said recently, halting to collect herself and wipe back tears, “because I think of all the people that died along the way.”

The bill provides a new entitlement program for veterans who served in a combat zone in the past 32 years. If they are diagnosed with any of 23 conditions identified in the legislation — ranging from specific cancers to breathing ailments — they would be deemed automatically eligible for health coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the new benefits would cost $280 billion over the next 10 years.

Most veterans — nearly 80% — who start experiencing symptoms after leaving the service get denied what’s known as a service connection when they seek help from the VA. The system has been designed to disbelieve them, the veterans complain. They must prove their breathing problems or cancers came from the toxic trash smoke they breathed overseas, which is extremely difficult.

When Le Roy returned home from Balad Air Base — the second-largest U.S. post in Iraq and where the military incinerated tons of debris daily, including plastic, ammunition, and medical waste — he was already sick. He was rushed to the hospital a few weeks later with a severe respiratory infection.

He had expected to keep working as a state trooper, but by 2010 it was clear he couldn’t perform all the duties because of his illness. When he asked for a different job with the Texas Department of Public Safety, he was denied. He was told he had to resign if he wanted to apply for medical retirement. The retirement request was then rejected. So he sued and eventually took the case to the Supreme Court, which in June ruled that states were not immune from such lawsuits by service members.

In those early years, the military and VA doctors couldn’t say what caused his breathing problems and splitting headaches. As with other victims of toxic exposure, diagnoses proved to be difficult. Some doctors suggested the problems weren’t real — a pronouncement often encountered by other vets whose claims are denied.

Like so many others, Rosie turned to the internet for information she couldn’t get from the VA, where she had worked for 23 years. She discovered a Facebook group that she would use as the basis for a new advocacy group, Burn Pits 360.

Le Roy was ultimately diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis, fibrosis of the lungs, and toxic encephalopathy. He eventually got his benefits in early 2013. By then, the family was deep in debt.

For years he lived with the reality that the military he had served for 23 years refused to answer his needs, and the police force he loved didn’t seem to care.

“It’s something that we have now learned is known as moral injury and compound loss,” Rosie said.

As a man, he began to wonder how he could provide for his family, if he was any use to anyone, she added. “So then that led to him attempting to take his life.”

It also led the couple and parents of three to beseech Congress to fix the problems. They started walking the halls in the Capitol. Success there was not any easier.

“We came to Capitol Hill and just handed out information we had printed about burn pit exposure,” Le Roy said at his last visit to the Hill in June, an oxygen tube strung under his nose.

“There were a lot of doors shut in our face,” Rosie said.

While making little progress in Congress, they built Burn Pits 360 into an advocacy group and a clearinghouse to help other veterans similarly frustrated by a system that seemed to be failing them.

The breakthrough for Rosie began when she saw Stewart and 9/11 survivors’ advocate John Feal winning a similar battle to make Congress fully fund health and compensation programs for responders of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She recalls reading up on the toxic substances in the dust and smoke that spewed from the collapsed twin towers and discovering they were remarkably similar to the poisons inhaled by troops near the waste fires that were also set ablaze with jet fuel.

She called Feal. Feal called Stewart, and by February 2019 the four of them were meeting on Capitol Hill with lawmakers, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the authors of the 9/11 legislation.

The key, they decided in those first meetings, was to remove the obstacles for the most common illnesses and eliminate the burden of proof on ill former soldiers. Gillibrand’s office wrote that bill, along with Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), who championed it in the House.

Related Links

• Senate GOP Puts Up Roadblocks to Bipartisan House Bill for Veterans’ Burn Pit Care
• Doctors Found Jet Fuel in Veteran’s Lungs. He Can’t Get Full Benefits.
• Role Reversal: Covid Increases Ranks of Child Caregivers

Ultimately, that bill became the heart of the measure that passed, known as the PACT Act and named for a soldier who died from cancer linked to his service.

“Our bill was the first federal presumption for burn pits coverage ever. And that was all because of Rosie and Le Roy,” said Gillibrand.

But just as with the 9/11 legislation, many in Congress weren’t that interested.

“It’s about money, and nobody likes to spend money,” Gillibrand said. “Congress never wants to accept the fact that treating these veterans and addressing their health care is the cost of war.”

Weeks ago, the bill appeared ready to glide through. It passed both the House and Senate but needed another vote to fix a technical legislative issue. Then on July 27, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who opposed the measure, unexpectedly persuaded 25 of his Republican colleagues who had supported the bill to vote against it, claiming that because the bill made the spending mandatory — not subject to the annual whims of Congress — Democrats would spend $400 billion elsewhere in the budget. Democrats countered that the money Toomey cited is already being spent and, regardless of how it’s categorized, it’s still up to Congress to appropriate it.

Rosie and veterans who had come to the Capitol that day to celebrate instead had to dig in one more time, with Stewart bringing the high-wattage attention that led the Republicans to reconsider. On Aug. 2, most Republicans decided to agree with the Democrats, and the bill passed 86 to 11.

Rosie said it never would have happened without Feal and Stewart. Stewart said it was all about Rosie, bringing together veterans in a way that Congress couldn’t ignore.

“She’s the reason I’m doing it, her and Le Roy,” Stewart said, standing outside the Capitol with Rosie the day before the vote.

Stewart, the Torreses, and untold other veterans tempered their joy with the warning that it will be a hard journey making the new program work with a VA that already has a massive backlog. The legislation has provisions to create facilities and bring in private doctors, but some vets remain dubious.

Iraq War veteran Brian Alvarado of Long Beach, California, was diagnosed with neck and throat cancer soon after returning from Iraq in 2006. He had been assigned to patrol one of the many burn pits. He eats and breathes through tubes and struggles to keep weight on. Radiation and a tracheostomy have left his voice almost inaudible.

“You can pass laws, but it all boils down to the VA. How are they going to implement the changes? The claims, the compensation, the treatment,” he asked in June. “And how long will it take?”

For the time being, though, Rosie said that even more than a visit to the White House, she was looking forward to going back to Texas and her family.

“You know, I lost 13 years away from my children, with trips to the hospital, coming to D.C.,” she said. “It means I can go home.”

Le Roy and Rosie can also reflect that as painful as this path has been, 3.5 million veterans are guaranteed a backstop because of this law, and thousands of veterans and active-duty service members who work for state and local governments now have recourse if they are fired after being injured at war.

“It is good to know that so many people will be helped,” Le Roy said from his home in Robstown, Texas. “It does help.”

KHN reporter Heidi de Marco contributed to this article.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The battle was just beginning for Le Roy Torres and his wife, Rosie, when the Army captain returned to Texas in 2008, already starting to suffer from the toxic substances he’d inhaled from the 10-acre burn pit at Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq.

Along the way, Le Roy would lose the job he loved as a Texas state trooper and take his fight all the way to a Supreme Court victory. He would be rushed to the emergency room hundreds of times, be denied health benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs for years, attempt suicide, and seek experimental cures for the damage done to his lungs and brain.

Amid all that, Le Roy and Rosie founded an organization to help others and push Congress to fix the laws that allowed the suffering of veterans to go on, and ultimately enlist people like comedian and activist Jon Stewart, who helped them win a dramatic showdown in the Senate last week.

Their struggle will never really be over. But the Torreses’ campaign to make sure no other veterans experience what they had to ends Aug. 10, when they are set to join President Joe Biden as he signs a law to guarantee that 3.5 million American warriors exposed to similar hazards can get care.

“I mean, to think that 13 years ago we were walking the halls [of Congress] — it’s really emotional,” Rosie said recently, halting to collect herself and wipe back tears, “because I think of all the people that died along the way.”

The bill provides a new entitlement program for veterans who served in a combat zone in the past 32 years. If they are diagnosed with any of 23 conditions identified in the legislation — ranging from specific cancers to breathing ailments — they would be deemed automatically eligible for health coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the new benefits would cost $280 billion over the next 10 years.

Most veterans — nearly 80% — who start experiencing symptoms after leaving the service get denied what’s known as a service connection when they seek help from the VA. The system has been designed to disbelieve them, the veterans complain. They must prove their breathing problems or cancers came from the toxic trash smoke they breathed overseas, which is extremely difficult.

When Le Roy returned home from Balad Air Base — the second-largest U.S. post in Iraq and where the military incinerated tons of debris daily, including plastic, ammunition, and medical waste — he was already sick. He was rushed to the hospital a few weeks later with a severe respiratory infection.

He had expected to keep working as a state trooper, but by 2010 it was clear he couldn’t perform all the duties because of his illness. When he asked for a different job with the Texas Department of Public Safety, he was denied. He was told he had to resign if he wanted to apply for medical retirement. The retirement request was then rejected. So he sued and eventually took the case to the Supreme Court, which in June ruled that states were not immune from such lawsuits by service members.

In those early years, the military and VA doctors couldn’t say what caused his breathing problems and splitting headaches. As with other victims of toxic exposure, diagnoses proved to be difficult. Some doctors suggested the problems weren’t real — a pronouncement often encountered by other vets whose claims are denied.

Like so many others, Rosie turned to the internet for information she couldn’t get from the VA, where she had worked for 23 years. She discovered a Facebook group that she would use as the basis for a new advocacy group, Burn Pits 360.

Le Roy was ultimately diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis, fibrosis of the lungs, and toxic encephalopathy. He eventually got his benefits in early 2013. By then, the family was deep in debt.

For years he lived with the reality that the military he had served for 23 years refused to answer his needs, and the police force he loved didn’t seem to care.

“It’s something that we have now learned is known as moral injury and compound loss,” Rosie said.

As a man, he began to wonder how he could provide for his family, if he was any use to anyone, she added. “So then that led to him attempting to take his life.”

It also led the couple and parents of three to beseech Congress to fix the problems. They started walking the halls in the Capitol. Success there was not any easier.

“We came to Capitol Hill and just handed out information we had printed about burn pit exposure,” Le Roy said at his last visit to the Hill in June, an oxygen tube strung under his nose.

“There were a lot of doors shut in our face,” Rosie said.

While making little progress in Congress, they built Burn Pits 360 into an advocacy group and a clearinghouse to help other veterans similarly frustrated by a system that seemed to be failing them.

The breakthrough for Rosie began when she saw Stewart and 9/11 survivors’ advocate John Feal winning a similar battle to make Congress fully fund health and compensation programs for responders of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She recalls reading up on the toxic substances in the dust and smoke that spewed from the collapsed twin towers and discovering they were remarkably similar to the poisons inhaled by troops near the waste fires that were also set ablaze with jet fuel.

She called Feal. Feal called Stewart, and by February 2019 the four of them were meeting on Capitol Hill with lawmakers, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the authors of the 9/11 legislation.

The key, they decided in those first meetings, was to remove the obstacles for the most common illnesses and eliminate the burden of proof on ill former soldiers. Gillibrand’s office wrote that bill, along with Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), who championed it in the House.

Related Links

• Senate GOP Puts Up Roadblocks to Bipartisan House Bill for Veterans’ Burn Pit Care
• Doctors Found Jet Fuel in Veteran’s Lungs. He Can’t Get Full Benefits.
• Role Reversal: Covid Increases Ranks of Child Caregivers

Ultimately, that bill became the heart of the measure that passed, known as the PACT Act and named for a soldier who died from cancer linked to his service.

“Our bill was the first federal presumption for burn pits coverage ever. And that was all because of Rosie and Le Roy,” said Gillibrand.

But just as with the 9/11 legislation, many in Congress weren’t that interested.

“It’s about money, and nobody likes to spend money,” Gillibrand said. “Congress never wants to accept the fact that treating these veterans and addressing their health care is the cost of war.”

Weeks ago, the bill appeared ready to glide through. It passed both the House and Senate but needed another vote to fix a technical legislative issue. Then on July 27, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who opposed the measure, unexpectedly persuaded 25 of his Republican colleagues who had supported the bill to vote against it, claiming that because the bill made the spending mandatory — not subject to the annual whims of Congress — Democrats would spend $400 billion elsewhere in the budget. Democrats countered that the money Toomey cited is already being spent and, regardless of how it’s categorized, it’s still up to Congress to appropriate it.

Rosie and veterans who had come to the Capitol that day to celebrate instead had to dig in one more time, with Stewart bringing the high-wattage attention that led the Republicans to reconsider. On Aug. 2, most Republicans decided to agree with the Democrats, and the bill passed 86 to 11.

Rosie said it never would have happened without Feal and Stewart. Stewart said it was all about Rosie, bringing together veterans in a way that Congress couldn’t ignore.

“She’s the reason I’m doing it, her and Le Roy,” Stewart said, standing outside the Capitol with Rosie the day before the vote.

Stewart, the Torreses, and untold other veterans tempered their joy with the warning that it will be a hard journey making the new program work with a VA that already has a massive backlog. The legislation has provisions to create facilities and bring in private doctors, but some vets remain dubious.

Iraq War veteran Brian Alvarado of Long Beach, California, was diagnosed with neck and throat cancer soon after returning from Iraq in 2006. He had been assigned to patrol one of the many burn pits. He eats and breathes through tubes and struggles to keep weight on. Radiation and a tracheostomy have left his voice almost inaudible.

“You can pass laws, but it all boils down to the VA. How are they going to implement the changes? The claims, the compensation, the treatment,” he asked in June. “And how long will it take?”

For the time being, though, Rosie said that even more than a visit to the White House, she was looking forward to going back to Texas and her family.

“You know, I lost 13 years away from my children, with trips to the hospital, coming to D.C.,” she said. “It means I can go home.”

Le Roy and Rosie can also reflect that as painful as this path has been, 3.5 million veterans are guaranteed a backstop because of this law, and thousands of veterans and active-duty service members who work for state and local governments now have recourse if they are fired after being injured at war.

“It is good to know that so many people will be helped,” Le Roy said from his home in Robstown, Texas. “It does help.”

KHN reporter Heidi de Marco contributed to this article.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The battle was just beginning for Le Roy Torres and his wife, Rosie, when the Army captain returned to Texas in 2008, already starting to suffer from the toxic substances he’d inhaled from the 10-acre burn pit at Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq.

Along the way, Le Roy would lose the job he loved as a Texas state trooper and take his fight all the way to a Supreme Court victory. He would be rushed to the emergency room hundreds of times, be denied health benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs for years, attempt suicide, and seek experimental cures for the damage done to his lungs and brain.

Amid all that, Le Roy and Rosie founded an organization to help others and push Congress to fix the laws that allowed the suffering of veterans to go on, and ultimately enlist people like comedian and activist Jon Stewart, who helped them win a dramatic showdown in the Senate last week.

Their struggle will never really be over. But the Torreses’ campaign to make sure no other veterans experience what they had to ends Aug. 10, when they are set to join President Joe Biden as he signs a law to guarantee that 3.5 million American warriors exposed to similar hazards can get care.

“I mean, to think that 13 years ago we were walking the halls [of Congress] — it’s really emotional,” Rosie said recently, halting to collect herself and wipe back tears, “because I think of all the people that died along the way.”

The bill provides a new entitlement program for veterans who served in a combat zone in the past 32 years. If they are diagnosed with any of 23 conditions identified in the legislation — ranging from specific cancers to breathing ailments — they would be deemed automatically eligible for health coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the new benefits would cost $280 billion over the next 10 years.

Most veterans — nearly 80% — who start experiencing symptoms after leaving the service get denied what’s known as a service connection when they seek help from the VA. The system has been designed to disbelieve them, the veterans complain. They must prove their breathing problems or cancers came from the toxic trash smoke they breathed overseas, which is extremely difficult.

When Le Roy returned home from Balad Air Base — the second-largest U.S. post in Iraq and where the military incinerated tons of debris daily, including plastic, ammunition, and medical waste — he was already sick. He was rushed to the hospital a few weeks later with a severe respiratory infection.

He had expected to keep working as a state trooper, but by 2010 it was clear he couldn’t perform all the duties because of his illness. When he asked for a different job with the Texas Department of Public Safety, he was denied. He was told he had to resign if he wanted to apply for medical retirement. The retirement request was then rejected. So he sued and eventually took the case to the Supreme Court, which in June ruled that states were not immune from such lawsuits by service members.

In those early years, the military and VA doctors couldn’t say what caused his breathing problems and splitting headaches. As with other victims of toxic exposure, diagnoses proved to be difficult. Some doctors suggested the problems weren’t real — a pronouncement often encountered by other vets whose claims are denied.

Like so many others, Rosie turned to the internet for information she couldn’t get from the VA, where she had worked for 23 years. She discovered a Facebook group that she would use as the basis for a new advocacy group, Burn Pits 360.

Le Roy was ultimately diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis, fibrosis of the lungs, and toxic encephalopathy. He eventually got his benefits in early 2013. By then, the family was deep in debt.

For years he lived with the reality that the military he had served for 23 years refused to answer his needs, and the police force he loved didn’t seem to care.

“It’s something that we have now learned is known as moral injury and compound loss,” Rosie said.

As a man, he began to wonder how he could provide for his family, if he was any use to anyone, she added. “So then that led to him attempting to take his life.”

It also led the couple and parents of three to beseech Congress to fix the problems. They started walking the halls in the Capitol. Success there was not any easier.

“We came to Capitol Hill and just handed out information we had printed about burn pit exposure,” Le Roy said at his last visit to the Hill in June, an oxygen tube strung under his nose.

“There were a lot of doors shut in our face,” Rosie said.

While making little progress in Congress, they built Burn Pits 360 into an advocacy group and a clearinghouse to help other veterans similarly frustrated by a system that seemed to be failing them.

The breakthrough for Rosie began when she saw Stewart and 9/11 survivors’ advocate John Feal winning a similar battle to make Congress fully fund health and compensation programs for responders of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She recalls reading up on the toxic substances in the dust and smoke that spewed from the collapsed twin towers and discovering they were remarkably similar to the poisons inhaled by troops near the waste fires that were also set ablaze with jet fuel.

She called Feal. Feal called Stewart, and by February 2019 the four of them were meeting on Capitol Hill with lawmakers, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the authors of the 9/11 legislation.

The key, they decided in those first meetings, was to remove the obstacles for the most common illnesses and eliminate the burden of proof on ill former soldiers. Gillibrand’s office wrote that bill, along with Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), who championed it in the House.

Related Links

• Senate GOP Puts Up Roadblocks to Bipartisan House Bill for Veterans’ Burn Pit Care
• Doctors Found Jet Fuel in Veteran’s Lungs. He Can’t Get Full Benefits.
• Role Reversal: Covid Increases Ranks of Child Caregivers

Ultimately, that bill became the heart of the measure that passed, known as the PACT Act and named for a soldier who died from cancer linked to his service.

“Our bill was the first federal presumption for burn pits coverage ever. And that was all because of Rosie and Le Roy,” said Gillibrand.

But just as with the 9/11 legislation, many in Congress weren’t that interested.

“It’s about money, and nobody likes to spend money,” Gillibrand said. “Congress never wants to accept the fact that treating these veterans and addressing their health care is the cost of war.”

Weeks ago, the bill appeared ready to glide through. It passed both the House and Senate but needed another vote to fix a technical legislative issue. Then on July 27, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who opposed the measure, unexpectedly persuaded 25 of his Republican colleagues who had supported the bill to vote against it, claiming that because the bill made the spending mandatory — not subject to the annual whims of Congress — Democrats would spend $400 billion elsewhere in the budget. Democrats countered that the money Toomey cited is already being spent and, regardless of how it’s categorized, it’s still up to Congress to appropriate it.

Rosie and veterans who had come to the Capitol that day to celebrate instead had to dig in one more time, with Stewart bringing the high-wattage attention that led the Republicans to reconsider. On Aug. 2, most Republicans decided to agree with the Democrats, and the bill passed 86 to 11.

Rosie said it never would have happened without Feal and Stewart. Stewart said it was all about Rosie, bringing together veterans in a way that Congress couldn’t ignore.

“She’s the reason I’m doing it, her and Le Roy,” Stewart said, standing outside the Capitol with Rosie the day before the vote.

Stewart, the Torreses, and untold other veterans tempered their joy with the warning that it will be a hard journey making the new program work with a VA that already has a massive backlog. The legislation has provisions to create facilities and bring in private doctors, but some vets remain dubious.

Iraq War veteran Brian Alvarado of Long Beach, California, was diagnosed with neck and throat cancer soon after returning from Iraq in 2006. He had been assigned to patrol one of the many burn pits. He eats and breathes through tubes and struggles to keep weight on. Radiation and a tracheostomy have left his voice almost inaudible.

“You can pass laws, but it all boils down to the VA. How are they going to implement the changes? The claims, the compensation, the treatment,” he asked in June. “And how long will it take?”

For the time being, though, Rosie said that even more than a visit to the White House, she was looking forward to going back to Texas and her family.

“You know, I lost 13 years away from my children, with trips to the hospital, coming to D.C.,” she said. “It means I can go home.”

Le Roy and Rosie can also reflect that as painful as this path has been, 3.5 million veterans are guaranteed a backstop because of this law, and thousands of veterans and active-duty service members who work for state and local governments now have recourse if they are fired after being injured at war.

“It is good to know that so many people will be helped,” Le Roy said from his home in Robstown, Texas. “It does help.”

KHN reporter Heidi de Marco contributed to this article.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Cardiorespiratory fitness emerged as a stronger predictor of all-cause mortality than did any traditional risk factor across the spectrum of age, sex, and race in a modeling study that included more than 750,000 U.S. veterans.

In addition, mortality risk was cut in half if individuals achieved a moderate cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level – that is, by meeting the current U.S. physical activity recommendations of 150 minutes per week, the authors note.

Furthermore, contrary to some previous research, “extremely high” fitness was not associated with an increased risk for mortality in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“This study has been 15 years in the making,” lead author Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “We waited until we had the computer power and the right people to really assess this. We wanted to be very liberal in excluding patients we thought might contaminate the results, such as those with cardiovascular disease in the 6 months prior to a stress test.”

Figuring the time was right, the team analyzed data from the VA’s Exercise Testing and Health Outcomes Study (ETHOS) on individuals aged 30-95 years who underwent exercise treadmill tests between 1999 and 2020.

After exclusions, 750,302 individuals (from among 822,995) were included: 6.5% were women; 73.7% were White individuals; 19% were African American individuals; 4.7% were Hispanic individuals; and 2.1% were Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian individuals. Septuagenarians made up 14.7% of the cohort, and octogenarians made up 3.6%.

CRF categories for age and sex were determined by the peak metabolic equivalent of task (MET) achieved during the treadmill test. One MET is the energy spent at rest – that is the basal metabolic rate.

Although some physicians may resist putting patients through a stress test, “the amount of information we get from it is incredible,” Dr. Kokkinos noted. “We get blood pressure, we get heart rate, we get a response if you’re not doing exercise. This tells us a lot more than having you sit around so we can measure resting heart rate and blood pressure.”

Lowest mortality at 14.0 METs

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years (7,803,861 person-years), 23% of participants died, for an average of 22.4 events per 1,000 person-years.

Higher exercise capacity was inversely related to mortality risk across the cohort and within each age category. Specifically, every 1 MET increase in exercise capacity yielded an adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.87; P < .001) for the entire cohort and similar HRs by sex and race.

The mortality risk for the least-fit individuals (20th percentile) was fourfold higher than for extremely fit individuals (HR, 4.09; 95% CI, 3.90-4.20), with the lowest mortality risk at about 14.0 METs for both men (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.23-0.25) and women (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29). Extremely high CRF did not increase the risk.

In addition, at 20 years of follow-up, about 80% of men and 95% of women in the highest CRF category (98th percentile) were alive vs. less than 40% of men and approximately 75% of women in the least fit CRF category.

“We know CRF declines by 1% per year after age 30,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “But the age-related decline is cut in half if you are fit, meaning that an expected 10% decline over a decade will be only a 5% decline if you stay active. We cannot stop or reverse the decline, but we can kind of put the brakes on, and that’s a reason for clinicians to continue to encourage fitness.” 

Indeed, “improving CRF should be considered a target in CVD prevention, similar to improving lipids, blood sugar, blood pressure, and weight,” Carl J. Lavie, MD, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, and colleagues affirm in a related editorial.
 

‘A difficult battle’

But that may not happen any time soon. “Unfortunately, despite having been recognized in an American Heart Association scientific statement as a clinical vital sign, aerobic fitness is undervalued and underutilized,” Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX, Rio de Janeiro, told this news organization.

Dr. Araújo led a recent study showing that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk for death over the next 7 years.

Although physicians should be encouraging fitness, he said that “a substantial part of health professionals are physically unfit and feel uncomfortable talking about and prescribing exercise for their patients. Also, physicians tend to be better trained in treating diseases (using medications and/or prescribing procedures) than in preventing diseases by stimulating adoption of healthy habits. So, this a long road and a difficult battle.”

Nonetheless, he added, “Darwin said a long time ago that only the fittest will survive. If Darwin could read this study, he would surely smile.”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest related to the study were reported. Dr. Lavie previously served as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health on their PAI (Personalized Activity Intelligence) applications.

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

Cardiorespiratory fitness emerged as a stronger predictor of all-cause mortality than did any traditional risk factor across the spectrum of age, sex, and race in a modeling study that included more than 750,000 U.S. veterans.

In addition, mortality risk was cut in half if individuals achieved a moderate cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level – that is, by meeting the current U.S. physical activity recommendations of 150 minutes per week, the authors note.

Furthermore, contrary to some previous research, “extremely high” fitness was not associated with an increased risk for mortality in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“This study has been 15 years in the making,” lead author Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “We waited until we had the computer power and the right people to really assess this. We wanted to be very liberal in excluding patients we thought might contaminate the results, such as those with cardiovascular disease in the 6 months prior to a stress test.”

Figuring the time was right, the team analyzed data from the VA’s Exercise Testing and Health Outcomes Study (ETHOS) on individuals aged 30-95 years who underwent exercise treadmill tests between 1999 and 2020.

After exclusions, 750,302 individuals (from among 822,995) were included: 6.5% were women; 73.7% were White individuals; 19% were African American individuals; 4.7% were Hispanic individuals; and 2.1% were Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian individuals. Septuagenarians made up 14.7% of the cohort, and octogenarians made up 3.6%.

CRF categories for age and sex were determined by the peak metabolic equivalent of task (MET) achieved during the treadmill test. One MET is the energy spent at rest – that is the basal metabolic rate.

Although some physicians may resist putting patients through a stress test, “the amount of information we get from it is incredible,” Dr. Kokkinos noted. “We get blood pressure, we get heart rate, we get a response if you’re not doing exercise. This tells us a lot more than having you sit around so we can measure resting heart rate and blood pressure.”

Lowest mortality at 14.0 METs

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years (7,803,861 person-years), 23% of participants died, for an average of 22.4 events per 1,000 person-years.

Higher exercise capacity was inversely related to mortality risk across the cohort and within each age category. Specifically, every 1 MET increase in exercise capacity yielded an adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.87; P < .001) for the entire cohort and similar HRs by sex and race.

The mortality risk for the least-fit individuals (20th percentile) was fourfold higher than for extremely fit individuals (HR, 4.09; 95% CI, 3.90-4.20), with the lowest mortality risk at about 14.0 METs for both men (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.23-0.25) and women (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29). Extremely high CRF did not increase the risk.

In addition, at 20 years of follow-up, about 80% of men and 95% of women in the highest CRF category (98th percentile) were alive vs. less than 40% of men and approximately 75% of women in the least fit CRF category.

“We know CRF declines by 1% per year after age 30,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “But the age-related decline is cut in half if you are fit, meaning that an expected 10% decline over a decade will be only a 5% decline if you stay active. We cannot stop or reverse the decline, but we can kind of put the brakes on, and that’s a reason for clinicians to continue to encourage fitness.” 

Indeed, “improving CRF should be considered a target in CVD prevention, similar to improving lipids, blood sugar, blood pressure, and weight,” Carl J. Lavie, MD, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, and colleagues affirm in a related editorial.
 

‘A difficult battle’

But that may not happen any time soon. “Unfortunately, despite having been recognized in an American Heart Association scientific statement as a clinical vital sign, aerobic fitness is undervalued and underutilized,” Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX, Rio de Janeiro, told this news organization.

Dr. Araújo led a recent study showing that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk for death over the next 7 years.

Although physicians should be encouraging fitness, he said that “a substantial part of health professionals are physically unfit and feel uncomfortable talking about and prescribing exercise for their patients. Also, physicians tend to be better trained in treating diseases (using medications and/or prescribing procedures) than in preventing diseases by stimulating adoption of healthy habits. So, this a long road and a difficult battle.”

Nonetheless, he added, “Darwin said a long time ago that only the fittest will survive. If Darwin could read this study, he would surely smile.”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest related to the study were reported. Dr. Lavie previously served as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health on their PAI (Personalized Activity Intelligence) applications.

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

Cardiorespiratory fitness emerged as a stronger predictor of all-cause mortality than did any traditional risk factor across the spectrum of age, sex, and race in a modeling study that included more than 750,000 U.S. veterans.

In addition, mortality risk was cut in half if individuals achieved a moderate cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level – that is, by meeting the current U.S. physical activity recommendations of 150 minutes per week, the authors note.

Furthermore, contrary to some previous research, “extremely high” fitness was not associated with an increased risk for mortality in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“This study has been 15 years in the making,” lead author Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “We waited until we had the computer power and the right people to really assess this. We wanted to be very liberal in excluding patients we thought might contaminate the results, such as those with cardiovascular disease in the 6 months prior to a stress test.”

Figuring the time was right, the team analyzed data from the VA’s Exercise Testing and Health Outcomes Study (ETHOS) on individuals aged 30-95 years who underwent exercise treadmill tests between 1999 and 2020.

After exclusions, 750,302 individuals (from among 822,995) were included: 6.5% were women; 73.7% were White individuals; 19% were African American individuals; 4.7% were Hispanic individuals; and 2.1% were Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian individuals. Septuagenarians made up 14.7% of the cohort, and octogenarians made up 3.6%.

CRF categories for age and sex were determined by the peak metabolic equivalent of task (MET) achieved during the treadmill test. One MET is the energy spent at rest – that is the basal metabolic rate.

Although some physicians may resist putting patients through a stress test, “the amount of information we get from it is incredible,” Dr. Kokkinos noted. “We get blood pressure, we get heart rate, we get a response if you’re not doing exercise. This tells us a lot more than having you sit around so we can measure resting heart rate and blood pressure.”

Lowest mortality at 14.0 METs

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years (7,803,861 person-years), 23% of participants died, for an average of 22.4 events per 1,000 person-years.

Higher exercise capacity was inversely related to mortality risk across the cohort and within each age category. Specifically, every 1 MET increase in exercise capacity yielded an adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.87; P < .001) for the entire cohort and similar HRs by sex and race.

The mortality risk for the least-fit individuals (20th percentile) was fourfold higher than for extremely fit individuals (HR, 4.09; 95% CI, 3.90-4.20), with the lowest mortality risk at about 14.0 METs for both men (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.23-0.25) and women (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29). Extremely high CRF did not increase the risk.

In addition, at 20 years of follow-up, about 80% of men and 95% of women in the highest CRF category (98th percentile) were alive vs. less than 40% of men and approximately 75% of women in the least fit CRF category.

“We know CRF declines by 1% per year after age 30,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “But the age-related decline is cut in half if you are fit, meaning that an expected 10% decline over a decade will be only a 5% decline if you stay active. We cannot stop or reverse the decline, but we can kind of put the brakes on, and that’s a reason for clinicians to continue to encourage fitness.” 

Indeed, “improving CRF should be considered a target in CVD prevention, similar to improving lipids, blood sugar, blood pressure, and weight,” Carl J. Lavie, MD, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, and colleagues affirm in a related editorial.
 

‘A difficult battle’

But that may not happen any time soon. “Unfortunately, despite having been recognized in an American Heart Association scientific statement as a clinical vital sign, aerobic fitness is undervalued and underutilized,” Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX, Rio de Janeiro, told this news organization.

Dr. Araújo led a recent study showing that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk for death over the next 7 years.

Although physicians should be encouraging fitness, he said that “a substantial part of health professionals are physically unfit and feel uncomfortable talking about and prescribing exercise for their patients. Also, physicians tend to be better trained in treating diseases (using medications and/or prescribing procedures) than in preventing diseases by stimulating adoption of healthy habits. So, this a long road and a difficult battle.”

Nonetheless, he added, “Darwin said a long time ago that only the fittest will survive. If Darwin could read this study, he would surely smile.”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest related to the study were reported. Dr. Lavie previously served as a speaker and consultant for PAI Health on their PAI (Personalized Activity Intelligence) applications.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Longitudinal progression of parenchymal changes on CT images — also referred to as quantitative interstitial abnormalities (QIA) – is independently associated with decreased lung function and an increased all-cause mortality risk, an analysis of two cohorts of ever-smokers indicates. And among the main risk factors for QIA progression is smoking.

“These abnormalities have gone by a few different names but fundamentally, they are high density findings of chest CT that in some cases represent early or subtle evidence of pulmonary fibrosis,” Samuel Ash, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I think this just adds to the huge list of reasons why people should quit smoking. So when I see someone with visual evidence of this type of change on their chest CT, I make sure to emphasize that while they don’t have interstitial lung disease [ILD] yet, these findings suggest they may be susceptible to lung injury from tobacco smoke and that if they don’t stop smoking now, they are at risk for a disease like interstitial pulmonary fibrosis [IPF] which is a highly morbid disease with a high mortality risk,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Ever-smoking cohorts

Analysis of QIA progression on CT chest scans was carried out on participants from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study as well as those from the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS). COPDGene was a prospective cohort of over 10,300 ever-smokers with at least a 10–pack-year smoking history between the ages of 45 and 80. Participants underwent a series of tests including chest CT scans at baseline between 2006 and 2011 and again approximately 5 years later.

Patients with a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 80% or more of predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC (forced vital capacity) ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have GOLD stage 0 disease while those with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 80% or less than predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) disease.

PLuSS involved 3,642 ever-smokers between the ages of 50 years and 79 years with at least a 12.5–pack-year history with no prior history of lung cancer. Participants again underwent a series of tests including a CT scan on visit 1 between 2002 and 2005 and then a second CT scan at a second visit almost 9 years later. “In the COPDGene cohort, 4,635 participants had complete clinical data, CT scans and spirometry from visits 1 and 2 for analysis,” the authors reported.

At visit 1 almost 48% of participants were current smokers and the mean pack-year history of the cohort was 41.9 years. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 5.6 years. Both the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ as well as the mean FVC decreased between visits 1 and 2. For example, the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ dropped from 2.2 liters to 2.0 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC decreased from 3.2 liters to 3.0 liters between the first and second visits.

In the PLuSS cohort, 1,307 participants had complete imaging and spirometry data available for visits 1 and 2 for analysis. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 8.6 years. Over 59% of the cohort were current smokers with a mean pack-year history of 65. Again, the mean prebronchodilator FEV1 and FVC both dropped between visit 1 and 2, as the authors note.

The mean prebronchodilator FEV1, for example, decreased from 2.5 liters to 2.1 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC dropped from 3.6 liters to 3.2 liters during the same interval. Looking at risk factors associated with QIA progression, investigators note that each additional year of baseline age was associated with a higher annual increase in QIA by 0.01% per year (95% confidence interval, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.02% increase (95% CI, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the PLuSS cohort.

Female sex in turn was associated with a 0.07% per year (95% CI, 0.02%-0.12%; P = .003) higher increase in the QIA, compared with men in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.14% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.26%; P = .025) per year higher increase in the QIA in the PLuSS cohort. Current smoking status was only associated with a higher rate of QIA progression in the COPDGene cohort at a rate of 0.10% per year (95% CI, 0.06%-0.15%; P < .001).

Lastly, every copy of the minor allele of the MUIC5B promoter polymorphism was associated with a 0.12% per year (95% CI, 0.07%-0.16%; P < .0001) increase in QIA in the COPDGene cohort as well.
 

Smoking cessation

Smoking cessation is the obvious first step for patients with evidence of QIA progression but physicians can probably do more for these patients sooner, Dr. Ash said. “If we use heart disease as an analogy, we don’t want to start treating someone until they have a heart attack or are in heart failure, we start by checking their cholesterol and blood pressure and treating them with medications to prevent progression.”

Similarly, physicians need to start thinking about IPF and other lung diseases in the same way. For IPF, medications such as pirfenidone (Esbriet) and nintedanib (Ofev) do not reverse prior lung damage but they do slow disease progression and physicians need to initiate treatment before patients are short of breath, not after. Meantime, Dr. Ash advised physicians that, if they have a patient who is getting a CT scan for whatever reason, they should keep a close eye on whether or not patients have any of these interstitial changes and, if they do, then if the changes are getting worse.

“These patients are likely to be the ones who are going to develop IPF and who may benefit from ongoing imaging surveillance,” he said. And while clinicians may not yet be ready to use a quantitative tool at the bedside, “this tool – or one like it – is coming and we have to start thinking about how to incorporate these types of devices into our clinical practice.”
 

Temporal changes

Asked to comment on the findings, Surya Bhatt, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study advances the community’s understanding of the relationship between temporal changes in objectively measured interstitial lung abnormalities and several important clinical outcomes, including lung function decline and mortality. “Several risk factors for progression were also identified,” he noted.

“And these results make a case for initiating clinical trials to determine whether early treatment with existing antifibrotic medications in these high risk individuals can decrease the perpetuation of these permanent lung changes,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The COPDGene study was supported in part by contributions made by an industry advisory board. Dr. Ash was supported in part by Quantitative Imaging Solutions. Dr. Bhatt declared that he has receiving consulting fees or has service on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi/Regeneron. He ha also received fee for CME from IntegrityCE.

Longitudinal progression of parenchymal changes on CT images — also referred to as quantitative interstitial abnormalities (QIA) – is independently associated with decreased lung function and an increased all-cause mortality risk, an analysis of two cohorts of ever-smokers indicates. And among the main risk factors for QIA progression is smoking.

“These abnormalities have gone by a few different names but fundamentally, they are high density findings of chest CT that in some cases represent early or subtle evidence of pulmonary fibrosis,” Samuel Ash, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I think this just adds to the huge list of reasons why people should quit smoking. So when I see someone with visual evidence of this type of change on their chest CT, I make sure to emphasize that while they don’t have interstitial lung disease [ILD] yet, these findings suggest they may be susceptible to lung injury from tobacco smoke and that if they don’t stop smoking now, they are at risk for a disease like interstitial pulmonary fibrosis [IPF] which is a highly morbid disease with a high mortality risk,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Ever-smoking cohorts

Analysis of QIA progression on CT chest scans was carried out on participants from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study as well as those from the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS). COPDGene was a prospective cohort of over 10,300 ever-smokers with at least a 10–pack-year smoking history between the ages of 45 and 80. Participants underwent a series of tests including chest CT scans at baseline between 2006 and 2011 and again approximately 5 years later.

Patients with a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 80% or more of predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC (forced vital capacity) ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have GOLD stage 0 disease while those with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 80% or less than predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) disease.

PLuSS involved 3,642 ever-smokers between the ages of 50 years and 79 years with at least a 12.5–pack-year history with no prior history of lung cancer. Participants again underwent a series of tests including a CT scan on visit 1 between 2002 and 2005 and then a second CT scan at a second visit almost 9 years later. “In the COPDGene cohort, 4,635 participants had complete clinical data, CT scans and spirometry from visits 1 and 2 for analysis,” the authors reported.

At visit 1 almost 48% of participants were current smokers and the mean pack-year history of the cohort was 41.9 years. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 5.6 years. Both the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ as well as the mean FVC decreased between visits 1 and 2. For example, the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ dropped from 2.2 liters to 2.0 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC decreased from 3.2 liters to 3.0 liters between the first and second visits.

In the PLuSS cohort, 1,307 participants had complete imaging and spirometry data available for visits 1 and 2 for analysis. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 8.6 years. Over 59% of the cohort were current smokers with a mean pack-year history of 65. Again, the mean prebronchodilator FEV1 and FVC both dropped between visit 1 and 2, as the authors note.

The mean prebronchodilator FEV1, for example, decreased from 2.5 liters to 2.1 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC dropped from 3.6 liters to 3.2 liters during the same interval. Looking at risk factors associated with QIA progression, investigators note that each additional year of baseline age was associated with a higher annual increase in QIA by 0.01% per year (95% confidence interval, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.02% increase (95% CI, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the PLuSS cohort.

Female sex in turn was associated with a 0.07% per year (95% CI, 0.02%-0.12%; P = .003) higher increase in the QIA, compared with men in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.14% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.26%; P = .025) per year higher increase in the QIA in the PLuSS cohort. Current smoking status was only associated with a higher rate of QIA progression in the COPDGene cohort at a rate of 0.10% per year (95% CI, 0.06%-0.15%; P < .001).

Lastly, every copy of the minor allele of the MUIC5B promoter polymorphism was associated with a 0.12% per year (95% CI, 0.07%-0.16%; P < .0001) increase in QIA in the COPDGene cohort as well.
 

Smoking cessation

Smoking cessation is the obvious first step for patients with evidence of QIA progression but physicians can probably do more for these patients sooner, Dr. Ash said. “If we use heart disease as an analogy, we don’t want to start treating someone until they have a heart attack or are in heart failure, we start by checking their cholesterol and blood pressure and treating them with medications to prevent progression.”

Similarly, physicians need to start thinking about IPF and other lung diseases in the same way. For IPF, medications such as pirfenidone (Esbriet) and nintedanib (Ofev) do not reverse prior lung damage but they do slow disease progression and physicians need to initiate treatment before patients are short of breath, not after. Meantime, Dr. Ash advised physicians that, if they have a patient who is getting a CT scan for whatever reason, they should keep a close eye on whether or not patients have any of these interstitial changes and, if they do, then if the changes are getting worse.

“These patients are likely to be the ones who are going to develop IPF and who may benefit from ongoing imaging surveillance,” he said. And while clinicians may not yet be ready to use a quantitative tool at the bedside, “this tool – or one like it – is coming and we have to start thinking about how to incorporate these types of devices into our clinical practice.”
 

Temporal changes

Asked to comment on the findings, Surya Bhatt, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study advances the community’s understanding of the relationship between temporal changes in objectively measured interstitial lung abnormalities and several important clinical outcomes, including lung function decline and mortality. “Several risk factors for progression were also identified,” he noted.

“And these results make a case for initiating clinical trials to determine whether early treatment with existing antifibrotic medications in these high risk individuals can decrease the perpetuation of these permanent lung changes,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The COPDGene study was supported in part by contributions made by an industry advisory board. Dr. Ash was supported in part by Quantitative Imaging Solutions. Dr. Bhatt declared that he has receiving consulting fees or has service on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi/Regeneron. He ha also received fee for CME from IntegrityCE.

Longitudinal progression of parenchymal changes on CT images — also referred to as quantitative interstitial abnormalities (QIA) – is independently associated with decreased lung function and an increased all-cause mortality risk, an analysis of two cohorts of ever-smokers indicates. And among the main risk factors for QIA progression is smoking.

“These abnormalities have gone by a few different names but fundamentally, they are high density findings of chest CT that in some cases represent early or subtle evidence of pulmonary fibrosis,” Samuel Ash, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I think this just adds to the huge list of reasons why people should quit smoking. So when I see someone with visual evidence of this type of change on their chest CT, I make sure to emphasize that while they don’t have interstitial lung disease [ILD] yet, these findings suggest they may be susceptible to lung injury from tobacco smoke and that if they don’t stop smoking now, they are at risk for a disease like interstitial pulmonary fibrosis [IPF] which is a highly morbid disease with a high mortality risk,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Ever-smoking cohorts

Analysis of QIA progression on CT chest scans was carried out on participants from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study as well as those from the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS). COPDGene was a prospective cohort of over 10,300 ever-smokers with at least a 10–pack-year smoking history between the ages of 45 and 80. Participants underwent a series of tests including chest CT scans at baseline between 2006 and 2011 and again approximately 5 years later.

Patients with a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 80% or more of predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC (forced vital capacity) ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have GOLD stage 0 disease while those with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 80% or less than predicted and a FEV₁-to-FVC ratio of at least 0.7 were defined to have preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) disease.

PLuSS involved 3,642 ever-smokers between the ages of 50 years and 79 years with at least a 12.5–pack-year history with no prior history of lung cancer. Participants again underwent a series of tests including a CT scan on visit 1 between 2002 and 2005 and then a second CT scan at a second visit almost 9 years later. “In the COPDGene cohort, 4,635 participants had complete clinical data, CT scans and spirometry from visits 1 and 2 for analysis,” the authors reported.

At visit 1 almost 48% of participants were current smokers and the mean pack-year history of the cohort was 41.9 years. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 5.6 years. Both the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ as well as the mean FVC decreased between visits 1 and 2. For example, the mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ dropped from 2.2 liters to 2.0 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC decreased from 3.2 liters to 3.0 liters between the first and second visits.

In the PLuSS cohort, 1,307 participants had complete imaging and spirometry data available for visits 1 and 2 for analysis. The mean time between visits 1 and 2 was 8.6 years. Over 59% of the cohort were current smokers with a mean pack-year history of 65. Again, the mean prebronchodilator FEV1 and FVC both dropped between visit 1 and 2, as the authors note.

The mean prebronchodilator FEV1, for example, decreased from 2.5 liters to 2.1 liters between visits 1 and 2 while the mean prebronchodilator FVC dropped from 3.6 liters to 3.2 liters during the same interval. Looking at risk factors associated with QIA progression, investigators note that each additional year of baseline age was associated with a higher annual increase in QIA by 0.01% per year (95% confidence interval, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.02% increase (95% CI, 0.01%-0.02%; P < .001) in the PLuSS cohort.

Female sex in turn was associated with a 0.07% per year (95% CI, 0.02%-0.12%; P = .003) higher increase in the QIA, compared with men in the COPDGene cohort and a 0.14% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.26%; P = .025) per year higher increase in the QIA in the PLuSS cohort. Current smoking status was only associated with a higher rate of QIA progression in the COPDGene cohort at a rate of 0.10% per year (95% CI, 0.06%-0.15%; P < .001).

Lastly, every copy of the minor allele of the MUIC5B promoter polymorphism was associated with a 0.12% per year (95% CI, 0.07%-0.16%; P < .0001) increase in QIA in the COPDGene cohort as well.
 

Smoking cessation

Smoking cessation is the obvious first step for patients with evidence of QIA progression but physicians can probably do more for these patients sooner, Dr. Ash said. “If we use heart disease as an analogy, we don’t want to start treating someone until they have a heart attack or are in heart failure, we start by checking their cholesterol and blood pressure and treating them with medications to prevent progression.”

Similarly, physicians need to start thinking about IPF and other lung diseases in the same way. For IPF, medications such as pirfenidone (Esbriet) and nintedanib (Ofev) do not reverse prior lung damage but they do slow disease progression and physicians need to initiate treatment before patients are short of breath, not after. Meantime, Dr. Ash advised physicians that, if they have a patient who is getting a CT scan for whatever reason, they should keep a close eye on whether or not patients have any of these interstitial changes and, if they do, then if the changes are getting worse.

“These patients are likely to be the ones who are going to develop IPF and who may benefit from ongoing imaging surveillance,” he said. And while clinicians may not yet be ready to use a quantitative tool at the bedside, “this tool – or one like it – is coming and we have to start thinking about how to incorporate these types of devices into our clinical practice.”
 

Temporal changes

Asked to comment on the findings, Surya Bhatt, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study advances the community’s understanding of the relationship between temporal changes in objectively measured interstitial lung abnormalities and several important clinical outcomes, including lung function decline and mortality. “Several risk factors for progression were also identified,” he noted.

“And these results make a case for initiating clinical trials to determine whether early treatment with existing antifibrotic medications in these high risk individuals can decrease the perpetuation of these permanent lung changes,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The COPDGene study was supported in part by contributions made by an industry advisory board. Dr. Ash was supported in part by Quantitative Imaging Solutions. Dr. Bhatt declared that he has receiving consulting fees or has service on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi/Regeneron. He ha also received fee for CME from IntegrityCE.

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.