Pulmonology

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Asthma is the most common cause of chronic cough in children, but it’s important to be aware of other differential diagnoses for those patients who have less common concerns, according to Rajeev Bhatia, MD, division chief of pulmonology at Phoenix Children’s in Phoenix, Arizona. Bhatia reviewed both the major causes of chronic cough as well as the rare zebras to watch out for in a presentation at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

“When you see a patient for cough, the most important thing is, history, history, history,” Bhatia said. “There are many, many, many clues in the history, age of onset, and duration.” That includes starting at birth to ensure you don’t miss key details such as a preterm birth. It’s also important to discuss what the cough sounds like, how frequent it is, what makes it better, what makes it worse, and how it’s affecting the child and others around them — all of which can help narrow the diagnosis.

Jose Quijada, DO, a pediatrician with CommuniCare Pediatrics in San Antonio, found the session “incredibly useful” not only because of the specific pointers about each condition but also because of the realistic case studies he included throughout.

“Sometimes when you’re practicing, you focus on what’s most common,” Quijada said, so it was helpful to get a review of some of the key features and red flags that point to less common causes that may need to be considered. He particularly appreciated the discussion of habitual cough and potential treatments because those can be challenging patients and it can be tough to find a middle ground with how much workup to do.
 

Common Causes of Chronic Cough

The coughing from inadequately controlled asthma tends to be nonproductive and worse at night or in the early morning, Bhatia explained, and it’s often accompanied by wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. While fractional exhaled nitric oxide can be useful, “studies show that it is more useful for to monitor the symptoms rather than to diagnose the asthma,” Bhatia told attendees, but he also added that spirometry can be normal in patients with asthma. In young patients, the Asthma Predictive Index can be an invaluable tool, he also said.

Another common cause of chronic cough is a postinfectious cough, which lasts more than 3 weeks after resolution of acute upper respiratory infection. It occurs in about one in 10 children after a viral infection such as a rhinovirus or respiratory syncytial virus infection and results from extensive inflammation and disruption of the airway epithelial integrity. Chest x-rays are usually normal in these patients, and the cough will usually resolve on its own. Albuterol has not been shown to be any more effective than placebo for a postinfectious cough, and antibiotics similarly have no clinically useful role.

A wet cough that lasts for at least 4 weeks and appears to have no other specific cause may be protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB). While the cause of PBB isn’t known, it could be due to frequent illnesses that cause airway inflammation and injury over time, thereby making it easier for bacteria to grow and cause infection. Risk factors include tracheomalacia/bronchomalacia and childcare attendance, and typical pathogens include Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis.

While an x-ray can be done, radiography is often normal in patients with PBB. Bronchoscopy will reveal purulent secretions. PBB should resolve with at least 2 weeks of antibiotics, including amoxicillin-clavulanate, but the course can be extended to 4 weeks if the cough persists. However, about 40% of patients will have recurrence, and those with recurrent PBB or with a chronic cough unresponsive to 4 weeks of antibiotics should be referred to a pediatric pulmonologist.

Upper airway cough syndrome is the updated name for postnasal drip, which can occur with both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. This is often a dry, throat-clearing cough that can be accompanied by headaches, nasal congestion, and sinus or facial tenderness. An examination will reveal posterior pharynx cobblestoning, Bhatia said, and empirical use of intranasal steroids can be both diagnostic and therapeutic for upper airway cough syndrome. He also emphasized the importance of taking an environmental history and avoiding exposure of environmental triggers.
 

Uncommon Pulmonary Causes of Chronic Cough

After discussing frequent reasons patients may present with a chronic cough, Bhatia went on to discuss the less common things to consider if the provider has eliminated the other possibilities. These include both pulmonary causes as well as congenital malformations, gastrointestinal causes, and habit cough.

A child who presents with a sudden onset of cough or wheeze in the absence of an upper respiratory infection may have a retained foreign body. This cough can be mistaken for bronchiolitis, asthma, croup, and other infectious conditions, especially because a partial obstruction can make diagnosis confusing or challenging. Adding to the challenge is that most foreign bodies will be radiolucent. A decubitus chest x-ray could be useful, but bronchoscopy is necessary for diagnosis. Bhatia stressed that it’s easy to miss a foreign body in younger children and that the wheezing can be more prominent on one side or another.

Cystic fibrosis, another uncommon cause of chronic cough, is ideally diagnosed via newborn screening, but screening is imperfect and can involve missed diagnoses or false negatives. Over 75% of cystic fibrosis cases are diagnosed by age 2, but that means a substantial number of cases still are not diagnosed until older childhood or later. This cough will be a chronic productive/wet cough.

A family history of cystic fibrosis may be present but doesn’t have to be, so signs to look for include poor weight gain, sinusitis, nasal polyps, clubbing, and isolation of suspicious organisms from a respiratory culture, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cepacia complex. Clubbing in the fingers is a particularly telltale symptom of undiagnosed cystic fibrosis, and bronchiectasis of unknown etiology will be present. Suspicion of cystic fibrosis should lead to a referral to a cystic fibrosis center for a sweat test.

Even rarer than cystic fibrosis is primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), an inherited autosomal recessive disease that occurs in about one in 20,000 live births and involves a structural or functional defect in the cilia. About half of all patients with PCD will have situs inversus — an arrangement of chest and abdominal organs that is a mirror image of typical human anatomical presentation — but most people with situs inversus do not have PCD. One type of PCD is Kartagener syndrome, identified by the triad of situs inversus totalis, chronic sinusitis, and bronchiectasis.

Children with PCD present with a chronic productive cough and recurrent pneumonias, and nearly all patients will have rhinosinusitis. About 60% of patients will develop respiratory symptoms such as mild distress or cough in their first month, and recurrent otitis media is common in these patients. PCD diagnosis is based on a combination of genetic testing, nasal nitric oxide, and evaluation of ciliary motion and structure. Clinical suspicion of PCD should lead to a specialist referral.

Nearly all people with PCD will eventually develop bronchiectasis, where the priority should be airway clearance using antibiotics for acute exacerbations and chronic azithromycin therapy for recurrent exacerbations. Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, and nasal polyposis should be referred to an ENT specialist.
 

Other Uncommon Causes of Chronic Cough

A non-pulmonary, uncommon cause of chronic cough is a vascular ring, a congenital anomaly in which blood vessels encircle and potentially constrict the esophagus and/or trachea. The most common type is a double aortic arch, but a right aortic arch or pulmonary artery sling is also possible. These coughs sound harsh and are usually accompanied by stridor, dyspnea and feeding problems. Workup includes an echocardiogram, a CT angiogram, and possibly a bronchoscopy to determine the extent of the airway narrowing. In symptomatic patients, surgery is indicated for correction.

Another congenital malformation that can cause chronic cough is a tracheoesophageal fistula, which occurs in about one in 3500 live births, commonly linked to trisomy disorders and VACTERL. Several types of tracheoesophageal fistula exist, and H-type fistula is associated with late onset symptoms. The cough can be wet or dry and sometimes sounds like barking because of the associated airway collapse. Patients often have recurrent pneumonia, bronchitis, and cough or cyanosis with feeding. Workup should include an upper gastrointestinal series but not with barium, Bhatia said, because that can cause pneumonitis. Instead, the series should be done with a thickened water-soluble contrast material, and a bronchoscopy may be indicated as well.

Though common as a condition in adults, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a rare, but possible, cause of chronic cough in children. More often, the reflux is the result of the cough rather than the cause. The most sensitive tool for assessing GERD is esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance reflux monitoring. However, treatment of the reflux for cough is not recommended unless the patient has clinical features of GERD, including dystonic neck posturing in infants, heartburn, regurgitation, or other symptoms. If the patient has clinical symptoms, then treatment is acid suppressive therapy for 4-8 weeks, followed by a clinical reassessment.

An uncommon cause of chronic cough with no biological mechanism is habit cough. Habit cough is most easily distinguished from other coughs by its sounds, a “large, loud, honking noise,” Bhatia said. It also lacks a clear trigger and is usually absent during sleep, but it can be continuous during the day. Frustratingly, the patients themselves often don’t seem bothered by the cough, but “it’s very disruptive in the school and everywhere else,” Bhatia said. Families and/providers will often have tried multiple treatments and seen no improvement with habit cough.

The first thing to do with habit cough is reassure the family that there’s nothing serious going on because they are often worried by this point. Several non-pharmaceutical treatments can be effective, such as suggestion therapy or the “warm water technique,” in which the patient takes a sip of warm water every time they feel the urge to cough. “If they’re able to break the cycle, most of the time, they are fine,” Bhatia said. In rarer cases, more involved behavioral interventions may be indicated, such as a psychology referral if an underlying anxiety or other behavioral disorder is contributing.
 

Newer Causes of Cough

Two more recent causes of cough to watch for are long COVID and e-cigarette or vaping product–associated lung injury (EVALI), Bhatia said. The clearest sign of EVALI is a history of e-cigarette/vaping exposure, but clinical symptoms include a dry cough that occurs with dyspnea and chest pain. A chest x-ray may show diffuse, hazy, or consolidative opacities. Sometimes antibiotics or steroids can be helpful, but the evidence isn’t strong, and the most effective treatment is stopping e-cigarette use. Less commonly, passive exposure to vaping can also be associated with EVALI.

The most recent research on long COVID suggests that about 10-20% of children with acute COVID develop long COVID, and about a quarter of these patients develop a chronic dry cough. It’s often associated with fatigue and shortness of breath, which can be assessed with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Sometimes a short trial of inhaled steroids can help.

Bhatia also mentioned a handful of other uncommon causes of chronic cough that most American pediatricians are unlikely to see: Childhood interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis, use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors, and a build-up of ear wax via the Arnold’s nerve reflex.
 

Evaluation and Workup

Bhatia also discussed what to cover while taking a history and questions to ask. The history should include the type of cough, the onset timing (sudden vs gradual), associated symptoms, the cough trajectory, medications the patient is taking, and the patient’s past medical history and environmental exposures. Those attributes are included in this more comprehensive list of questions to consider during evaluation, adapted from a list provided in a 2019 article in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews:

• Age of onset and duration?
• Was the onset sudden or associate with an illness?
• Is the cough wet or dry?
• What does the cough sound like?
• How often does the cough occur?
• Is it progressive?
• Is it present during sleep?
• Are there any other associated symptoms, such as wheeze, dyspnea, vomiting, chest pain, etc?
• Are there any exacerbating factors or known triggers?
• Are there any relieving factors, including a trial of bronchodilators?
• Has there been exposure to auto-irritants, such as secondhand smoke?
• What is the cough’s effect on the child and on others around the child?
• Does the child have any other underlying conditions such as neuromuscular disease or asthma?
• What medications is the child taking or has recently taken?
• Is there a family history of atopy and/or respiratory disease?

Bhatia also recommended paying special attention to the following red flags or key features that may help more quickly narrow the diagnosis and often require a specialist referral:

• Digital clubbing, failure to thrive, or low tone
• An abnormal cardiac exam
• Tachypnea, hypoxemia, chest retractions, or hemoptysis
• Abnormal breath sounds such as unilateral wheezing or coarse crackles
• Abnormal spirometry in those aged 5 and older showing reversible obstruction, which often indicates asthma
• An abnormal chest x-ray with, for example, bilateral infiltrates, hyperinflation, right middle lobe syndrome, situs inversus, unilateral hyperlucency, a right aortic arch, etc.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Bhatia and Quijada had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Asthma is the most common cause of chronic cough in children, but it’s important to be aware of other differential diagnoses for those patients who have less common concerns, according to Rajeev Bhatia, MD, division chief of pulmonology at Phoenix Children’s in Phoenix, Arizona. Bhatia reviewed both the major causes of chronic cough as well as the rare zebras to watch out for in a presentation at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

“When you see a patient for cough, the most important thing is, history, history, history,” Bhatia said. “There are many, many, many clues in the history, age of onset, and duration.” That includes starting at birth to ensure you don’t miss key details such as a preterm birth. It’s also important to discuss what the cough sounds like, how frequent it is, what makes it better, what makes it worse, and how it’s affecting the child and others around them — all of which can help narrow the diagnosis.

Jose Quijada, DO, a pediatrician with CommuniCare Pediatrics in San Antonio, found the session “incredibly useful” not only because of the specific pointers about each condition but also because of the realistic case studies he included throughout.

“Sometimes when you’re practicing, you focus on what’s most common,” Quijada said, so it was helpful to get a review of some of the key features and red flags that point to less common causes that may need to be considered. He particularly appreciated the discussion of habitual cough and potential treatments because those can be challenging patients and it can be tough to find a middle ground with how much workup to do.
 

Common Causes of Chronic Cough

The coughing from inadequately controlled asthma tends to be nonproductive and worse at night or in the early morning, Bhatia explained, and it’s often accompanied by wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. While fractional exhaled nitric oxide can be useful, “studies show that it is more useful for to monitor the symptoms rather than to diagnose the asthma,” Bhatia told attendees, but he also added that spirometry can be normal in patients with asthma. In young patients, the Asthma Predictive Index can be an invaluable tool, he also said.

Another common cause of chronic cough is a postinfectious cough, which lasts more than 3 weeks after resolution of acute upper respiratory infection. It occurs in about one in 10 children after a viral infection such as a rhinovirus or respiratory syncytial virus infection and results from extensive inflammation and disruption of the airway epithelial integrity. Chest x-rays are usually normal in these patients, and the cough will usually resolve on its own. Albuterol has not been shown to be any more effective than placebo for a postinfectious cough, and antibiotics similarly have no clinically useful role.

A wet cough that lasts for at least 4 weeks and appears to have no other specific cause may be protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB). While the cause of PBB isn’t known, it could be due to frequent illnesses that cause airway inflammation and injury over time, thereby making it easier for bacteria to grow and cause infection. Risk factors include tracheomalacia/bronchomalacia and childcare attendance, and typical pathogens include Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis.

While an x-ray can be done, radiography is often normal in patients with PBB. Bronchoscopy will reveal purulent secretions. PBB should resolve with at least 2 weeks of antibiotics, including amoxicillin-clavulanate, but the course can be extended to 4 weeks if the cough persists. However, about 40% of patients will have recurrence, and those with recurrent PBB or with a chronic cough unresponsive to 4 weeks of antibiotics should be referred to a pediatric pulmonologist.

Upper airway cough syndrome is the updated name for postnasal drip, which can occur with both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. This is often a dry, throat-clearing cough that can be accompanied by headaches, nasal congestion, and sinus or facial tenderness. An examination will reveal posterior pharynx cobblestoning, Bhatia said, and empirical use of intranasal steroids can be both diagnostic and therapeutic for upper airway cough syndrome. He also emphasized the importance of taking an environmental history and avoiding exposure of environmental triggers.
 

Uncommon Pulmonary Causes of Chronic Cough

After discussing frequent reasons patients may present with a chronic cough, Bhatia went on to discuss the less common things to consider if the provider has eliminated the other possibilities. These include both pulmonary causes as well as congenital malformations, gastrointestinal causes, and habit cough.

A child who presents with a sudden onset of cough or wheeze in the absence of an upper respiratory infection may have a retained foreign body. This cough can be mistaken for bronchiolitis, asthma, croup, and other infectious conditions, especially because a partial obstruction can make diagnosis confusing or challenging. Adding to the challenge is that most foreign bodies will be radiolucent. A decubitus chest x-ray could be useful, but bronchoscopy is necessary for diagnosis. Bhatia stressed that it’s easy to miss a foreign body in younger children and that the wheezing can be more prominent on one side or another.

Cystic fibrosis, another uncommon cause of chronic cough, is ideally diagnosed via newborn screening, but screening is imperfect and can involve missed diagnoses or false negatives. Over 75% of cystic fibrosis cases are diagnosed by age 2, but that means a substantial number of cases still are not diagnosed until older childhood or later. This cough will be a chronic productive/wet cough.

A family history of cystic fibrosis may be present but doesn’t have to be, so signs to look for include poor weight gain, sinusitis, nasal polyps, clubbing, and isolation of suspicious organisms from a respiratory culture, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cepacia complex. Clubbing in the fingers is a particularly telltale symptom of undiagnosed cystic fibrosis, and bronchiectasis of unknown etiology will be present. Suspicion of cystic fibrosis should lead to a referral to a cystic fibrosis center for a sweat test.

Even rarer than cystic fibrosis is primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), an inherited autosomal recessive disease that occurs in about one in 20,000 live births and involves a structural or functional defect in the cilia. About half of all patients with PCD will have situs inversus — an arrangement of chest and abdominal organs that is a mirror image of typical human anatomical presentation — but most people with situs inversus do not have PCD. One type of PCD is Kartagener syndrome, identified by the triad of situs inversus totalis, chronic sinusitis, and bronchiectasis.

Children with PCD present with a chronic productive cough and recurrent pneumonias, and nearly all patients will have rhinosinusitis. About 60% of patients will develop respiratory symptoms such as mild distress or cough in their first month, and recurrent otitis media is common in these patients. PCD diagnosis is based on a combination of genetic testing, nasal nitric oxide, and evaluation of ciliary motion and structure. Clinical suspicion of PCD should lead to a specialist referral.

Nearly all people with PCD will eventually develop bronchiectasis, where the priority should be airway clearance using antibiotics for acute exacerbations and chronic azithromycin therapy for recurrent exacerbations. Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, and nasal polyposis should be referred to an ENT specialist.
 

Other Uncommon Causes of Chronic Cough

A non-pulmonary, uncommon cause of chronic cough is a vascular ring, a congenital anomaly in which blood vessels encircle and potentially constrict the esophagus and/or trachea. The most common type is a double aortic arch, but a right aortic arch or pulmonary artery sling is also possible. These coughs sound harsh and are usually accompanied by stridor, dyspnea and feeding problems. Workup includes an echocardiogram, a CT angiogram, and possibly a bronchoscopy to determine the extent of the airway narrowing. In symptomatic patients, surgery is indicated for correction.

Another congenital malformation that can cause chronic cough is a tracheoesophageal fistula, which occurs in about one in 3500 live births, commonly linked to trisomy disorders and VACTERL. Several types of tracheoesophageal fistula exist, and H-type fistula is associated with late onset symptoms. The cough can be wet or dry and sometimes sounds like barking because of the associated airway collapse. Patients often have recurrent pneumonia, bronchitis, and cough or cyanosis with feeding. Workup should include an upper gastrointestinal series but not with barium, Bhatia said, because that can cause pneumonitis. Instead, the series should be done with a thickened water-soluble contrast material, and a bronchoscopy may be indicated as well.

Though common as a condition in adults, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a rare, but possible, cause of chronic cough in children. More often, the reflux is the result of the cough rather than the cause. The most sensitive tool for assessing GERD is esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance reflux monitoring. However, treatment of the reflux for cough is not recommended unless the patient has clinical features of GERD, including dystonic neck posturing in infants, heartburn, regurgitation, or other symptoms. If the patient has clinical symptoms, then treatment is acid suppressive therapy for 4-8 weeks, followed by a clinical reassessment.

An uncommon cause of chronic cough with no biological mechanism is habit cough. Habit cough is most easily distinguished from other coughs by its sounds, a “large, loud, honking noise,” Bhatia said. It also lacks a clear trigger and is usually absent during sleep, but it can be continuous during the day. Frustratingly, the patients themselves often don’t seem bothered by the cough, but “it’s very disruptive in the school and everywhere else,” Bhatia said. Families and/providers will often have tried multiple treatments and seen no improvement with habit cough.

The first thing to do with habit cough is reassure the family that there’s nothing serious going on because they are often worried by this point. Several non-pharmaceutical treatments can be effective, such as suggestion therapy or the “warm water technique,” in which the patient takes a sip of warm water every time they feel the urge to cough. “If they’re able to break the cycle, most of the time, they are fine,” Bhatia said. In rarer cases, more involved behavioral interventions may be indicated, such as a psychology referral if an underlying anxiety or other behavioral disorder is contributing.
 

Newer Causes of Cough

Two more recent causes of cough to watch for are long COVID and e-cigarette or vaping product–associated lung injury (EVALI), Bhatia said. The clearest sign of EVALI is a history of e-cigarette/vaping exposure, but clinical symptoms include a dry cough that occurs with dyspnea and chest pain. A chest x-ray may show diffuse, hazy, or consolidative opacities. Sometimes antibiotics or steroids can be helpful, but the evidence isn’t strong, and the most effective treatment is stopping e-cigarette use. Less commonly, passive exposure to vaping can also be associated with EVALI.

The most recent research on long COVID suggests that about 10-20% of children with acute COVID develop long COVID, and about a quarter of these patients develop a chronic dry cough. It’s often associated with fatigue and shortness of breath, which can be assessed with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Sometimes a short trial of inhaled steroids can help.

Bhatia also mentioned a handful of other uncommon causes of chronic cough that most American pediatricians are unlikely to see: Childhood interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis, use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors, and a build-up of ear wax via the Arnold’s nerve reflex.
 

Evaluation and Workup

Bhatia also discussed what to cover while taking a history and questions to ask. The history should include the type of cough, the onset timing (sudden vs gradual), associated symptoms, the cough trajectory, medications the patient is taking, and the patient’s past medical history and environmental exposures. Those attributes are included in this more comprehensive list of questions to consider during evaluation, adapted from a list provided in a 2019 article in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews:

• Age of onset and duration?
• Was the onset sudden or associate with an illness?
• Is the cough wet or dry?
• What does the cough sound like?
• How often does the cough occur?
• Is it progressive?
• Is it present during sleep?
• Are there any other associated symptoms, such as wheeze, dyspnea, vomiting, chest pain, etc?
• Are there any exacerbating factors or known triggers?
• Are there any relieving factors, including a trial of bronchodilators?
• Has there been exposure to auto-irritants, such as secondhand smoke?
• What is the cough’s effect on the child and on others around the child?
• Does the child have any other underlying conditions such as neuromuscular disease or asthma?
• What medications is the child taking or has recently taken?
• Is there a family history of atopy and/or respiratory disease?

Bhatia also recommended paying special attention to the following red flags or key features that may help more quickly narrow the diagnosis and often require a specialist referral:

• Digital clubbing, failure to thrive, or low tone
• An abnormal cardiac exam
• Tachypnea, hypoxemia, chest retractions, or hemoptysis
• Abnormal breath sounds such as unilateral wheezing or coarse crackles
• Abnormal spirometry in those aged 5 and older showing reversible obstruction, which often indicates asthma
• An abnormal chest x-ray with, for example, bilateral infiltrates, hyperinflation, right middle lobe syndrome, situs inversus, unilateral hyperlucency, a right aortic arch, etc.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Bhatia and Quijada had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Asthma is the most common cause of chronic cough in children, but it’s important to be aware of other differential diagnoses for those patients who have less common concerns, according to Rajeev Bhatia, MD, division chief of pulmonology at Phoenix Children’s in Phoenix, Arizona. Bhatia reviewed both the major causes of chronic cough as well as the rare zebras to watch out for in a presentation at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

“When you see a patient for cough, the most important thing is, history, history, history,” Bhatia said. “There are many, many, many clues in the history, age of onset, and duration.” That includes starting at birth to ensure you don’t miss key details such as a preterm birth. It’s also important to discuss what the cough sounds like, how frequent it is, what makes it better, what makes it worse, and how it’s affecting the child and others around them — all of which can help narrow the diagnosis.

Jose Quijada, DO, a pediatrician with CommuniCare Pediatrics in San Antonio, found the session “incredibly useful” not only because of the specific pointers about each condition but also because of the realistic case studies he included throughout.

“Sometimes when you’re practicing, you focus on what’s most common,” Quijada said, so it was helpful to get a review of some of the key features and red flags that point to less common causes that may need to be considered. He particularly appreciated the discussion of habitual cough and potential treatments because those can be challenging patients and it can be tough to find a middle ground with how much workup to do.
 

Common Causes of Chronic Cough

The coughing from inadequately controlled asthma tends to be nonproductive and worse at night or in the early morning, Bhatia explained, and it’s often accompanied by wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. While fractional exhaled nitric oxide can be useful, “studies show that it is more useful for to monitor the symptoms rather than to diagnose the asthma,” Bhatia told attendees, but he also added that spirometry can be normal in patients with asthma. In young patients, the Asthma Predictive Index can be an invaluable tool, he also said.

Another common cause of chronic cough is a postinfectious cough, which lasts more than 3 weeks after resolution of acute upper respiratory infection. It occurs in about one in 10 children after a viral infection such as a rhinovirus or respiratory syncytial virus infection and results from extensive inflammation and disruption of the airway epithelial integrity. Chest x-rays are usually normal in these patients, and the cough will usually resolve on its own. Albuterol has not been shown to be any more effective than placebo for a postinfectious cough, and antibiotics similarly have no clinically useful role.

A wet cough that lasts for at least 4 weeks and appears to have no other specific cause may be protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB). While the cause of PBB isn’t known, it could be due to frequent illnesses that cause airway inflammation and injury over time, thereby making it easier for bacteria to grow and cause infection. Risk factors include tracheomalacia/bronchomalacia and childcare attendance, and typical pathogens include Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis.

While an x-ray can be done, radiography is often normal in patients with PBB. Bronchoscopy will reveal purulent secretions. PBB should resolve with at least 2 weeks of antibiotics, including amoxicillin-clavulanate, but the course can be extended to 4 weeks if the cough persists. However, about 40% of patients will have recurrence, and those with recurrent PBB or with a chronic cough unresponsive to 4 weeks of antibiotics should be referred to a pediatric pulmonologist.

Upper airway cough syndrome is the updated name for postnasal drip, which can occur with both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. This is often a dry, throat-clearing cough that can be accompanied by headaches, nasal congestion, and sinus or facial tenderness. An examination will reveal posterior pharynx cobblestoning, Bhatia said, and empirical use of intranasal steroids can be both diagnostic and therapeutic for upper airway cough syndrome. He also emphasized the importance of taking an environmental history and avoiding exposure of environmental triggers.
 

Uncommon Pulmonary Causes of Chronic Cough

After discussing frequent reasons patients may present with a chronic cough, Bhatia went on to discuss the less common things to consider if the provider has eliminated the other possibilities. These include both pulmonary causes as well as congenital malformations, gastrointestinal causes, and habit cough.

A child who presents with a sudden onset of cough or wheeze in the absence of an upper respiratory infection may have a retained foreign body. This cough can be mistaken for bronchiolitis, asthma, croup, and other infectious conditions, especially because a partial obstruction can make diagnosis confusing or challenging. Adding to the challenge is that most foreign bodies will be radiolucent. A decubitus chest x-ray could be useful, but bronchoscopy is necessary for diagnosis. Bhatia stressed that it’s easy to miss a foreign body in younger children and that the wheezing can be more prominent on one side or another.

Cystic fibrosis, another uncommon cause of chronic cough, is ideally diagnosed via newborn screening, but screening is imperfect and can involve missed diagnoses or false negatives. Over 75% of cystic fibrosis cases are diagnosed by age 2, but that means a substantial number of cases still are not diagnosed until older childhood or later. This cough will be a chronic productive/wet cough.

A family history of cystic fibrosis may be present but doesn’t have to be, so signs to look for include poor weight gain, sinusitis, nasal polyps, clubbing, and isolation of suspicious organisms from a respiratory culture, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cepacia complex. Clubbing in the fingers is a particularly telltale symptom of undiagnosed cystic fibrosis, and bronchiectasis of unknown etiology will be present. Suspicion of cystic fibrosis should lead to a referral to a cystic fibrosis center for a sweat test.

Even rarer than cystic fibrosis is primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), an inherited autosomal recessive disease that occurs in about one in 20,000 live births and involves a structural or functional defect in the cilia. About half of all patients with PCD will have situs inversus — an arrangement of chest and abdominal organs that is a mirror image of typical human anatomical presentation — but most people with situs inversus do not have PCD. One type of PCD is Kartagener syndrome, identified by the triad of situs inversus totalis, chronic sinusitis, and bronchiectasis.

Children with PCD present with a chronic productive cough and recurrent pneumonias, and nearly all patients will have rhinosinusitis. About 60% of patients will develop respiratory symptoms such as mild distress or cough in their first month, and recurrent otitis media is common in these patients. PCD diagnosis is based on a combination of genetic testing, nasal nitric oxide, and evaluation of ciliary motion and structure. Clinical suspicion of PCD should lead to a specialist referral.

Nearly all people with PCD will eventually develop bronchiectasis, where the priority should be airway clearance using antibiotics for acute exacerbations and chronic azithromycin therapy for recurrent exacerbations. Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, and nasal polyposis should be referred to an ENT specialist.
 

Other Uncommon Causes of Chronic Cough

A non-pulmonary, uncommon cause of chronic cough is a vascular ring, a congenital anomaly in which blood vessels encircle and potentially constrict the esophagus and/or trachea. The most common type is a double aortic arch, but a right aortic arch or pulmonary artery sling is also possible. These coughs sound harsh and are usually accompanied by stridor, dyspnea and feeding problems. Workup includes an echocardiogram, a CT angiogram, and possibly a bronchoscopy to determine the extent of the airway narrowing. In symptomatic patients, surgery is indicated for correction.

Another congenital malformation that can cause chronic cough is a tracheoesophageal fistula, which occurs in about one in 3500 live births, commonly linked to trisomy disorders and VACTERL. Several types of tracheoesophageal fistula exist, and H-type fistula is associated with late onset symptoms. The cough can be wet or dry and sometimes sounds like barking because of the associated airway collapse. Patients often have recurrent pneumonia, bronchitis, and cough or cyanosis with feeding. Workup should include an upper gastrointestinal series but not with barium, Bhatia said, because that can cause pneumonitis. Instead, the series should be done with a thickened water-soluble contrast material, and a bronchoscopy may be indicated as well.

Though common as a condition in adults, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a rare, but possible, cause of chronic cough in children. More often, the reflux is the result of the cough rather than the cause. The most sensitive tool for assessing GERD is esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance reflux monitoring. However, treatment of the reflux for cough is not recommended unless the patient has clinical features of GERD, including dystonic neck posturing in infants, heartburn, regurgitation, or other symptoms. If the patient has clinical symptoms, then treatment is acid suppressive therapy for 4-8 weeks, followed by a clinical reassessment.

An uncommon cause of chronic cough with no biological mechanism is habit cough. Habit cough is most easily distinguished from other coughs by its sounds, a “large, loud, honking noise,” Bhatia said. It also lacks a clear trigger and is usually absent during sleep, but it can be continuous during the day. Frustratingly, the patients themselves often don’t seem bothered by the cough, but “it’s very disruptive in the school and everywhere else,” Bhatia said. Families and/providers will often have tried multiple treatments and seen no improvement with habit cough.

The first thing to do with habit cough is reassure the family that there’s nothing serious going on because they are often worried by this point. Several non-pharmaceutical treatments can be effective, such as suggestion therapy or the “warm water technique,” in which the patient takes a sip of warm water every time they feel the urge to cough. “If they’re able to break the cycle, most of the time, they are fine,” Bhatia said. In rarer cases, more involved behavioral interventions may be indicated, such as a psychology referral if an underlying anxiety or other behavioral disorder is contributing.
 

Newer Causes of Cough

Two more recent causes of cough to watch for are long COVID and e-cigarette or vaping product–associated lung injury (EVALI), Bhatia said. The clearest sign of EVALI is a history of e-cigarette/vaping exposure, but clinical symptoms include a dry cough that occurs with dyspnea and chest pain. A chest x-ray may show diffuse, hazy, or consolidative opacities. Sometimes antibiotics or steroids can be helpful, but the evidence isn’t strong, and the most effective treatment is stopping e-cigarette use. Less commonly, passive exposure to vaping can also be associated with EVALI.

The most recent research on long COVID suggests that about 10-20% of children with acute COVID develop long COVID, and about a quarter of these patients develop a chronic dry cough. It’s often associated with fatigue and shortness of breath, which can be assessed with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Sometimes a short trial of inhaled steroids can help.

Bhatia also mentioned a handful of other uncommon causes of chronic cough that most American pediatricians are unlikely to see: Childhood interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis, use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors, and a build-up of ear wax via the Arnold’s nerve reflex.
 

Evaluation and Workup

Bhatia also discussed what to cover while taking a history and questions to ask. The history should include the type of cough, the onset timing (sudden vs gradual), associated symptoms, the cough trajectory, medications the patient is taking, and the patient’s past medical history and environmental exposures. Those attributes are included in this more comprehensive list of questions to consider during evaluation, adapted from a list provided in a 2019 article in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews:

• Age of onset and duration?
• Was the onset sudden or associate with an illness?
• Is the cough wet or dry?
• What does the cough sound like?
• How often does the cough occur?
• Is it progressive?
• Is it present during sleep?
• Are there any other associated symptoms, such as wheeze, dyspnea, vomiting, chest pain, etc?
• Are there any exacerbating factors or known triggers?
• Are there any relieving factors, including a trial of bronchodilators?
• Has there been exposure to auto-irritants, such as secondhand smoke?
• What is the cough’s effect on the child and on others around the child?
• Does the child have any other underlying conditions such as neuromuscular disease or asthma?
• What medications is the child taking or has recently taken?
• Is there a family history of atopy and/or respiratory disease?

Bhatia also recommended paying special attention to the following red flags or key features that may help more quickly narrow the diagnosis and often require a specialist referral:

• Digital clubbing, failure to thrive, or low tone
• An abnormal cardiac exam
• Tachypnea, hypoxemia, chest retractions, or hemoptysis
• Abnormal breath sounds such as unilateral wheezing or coarse crackles
• Abnormal spirometry in those aged 5 and older showing reversible obstruction, which often indicates asthma
• An abnormal chest x-ray with, for example, bilateral infiltrates, hyperinflation, right middle lobe syndrome, situs inversus, unilateral hyperlucency, a right aortic arch, etc.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Bhatia and Quijada had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.