Pulmonology

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

A week earlier I’d had a heart surgery and was heading out for a post-op appointment when I saw it: I had a flat tire. It didn’t make sense. The tire was brand new, and there was no puncture. But it was flat.

I swapped out the flat for the spare and went off base to a tire shop. While I was there, my surgeon’s office called and rescheduled my appointment for a couple of hours later. That was lucky because by the time the tire was fixed, I had just enough time to get there.

The hospital is right near I-35 in San Antonio, Texas. I got off the freeway and onto the access road and paused to turn into the parking lot. That’s when I heard an enormous crash.

I saw a big poof of white smoke, and a car barreled off the freeway and came rolling down the embankment.

When the car hit the access road, I saw a woman ejected through the windshield. She bounced and landed in the road about 25 feet in front of me.

I put my car in park, grabbed my face mask and gloves, and started running toward her. But another vehicle — a truck towing a trailer — came from behind to drive around me. The driver didn’t realize what had happened and couldn’t stop in time…

The trailer ran over her.

I didn’t know if anyone could’ve survived that, but I went to her. I saw several other bystanders, but they were frozen in shock. I was praying, dear God, if she’s alive, let me do whatever I need to do to save her life.

It was a horrible scene. This poor lady was in a bloody heap in the middle of the road. Her right arm was twisted up under her neck so tightly, she was choking herself. So, the first thing I did was straighten her arm out to protect her airway.

I started yelling at people, “Call 9-1-1! Run to the hospital! Let them know there’s an accident out here, and I need help!”

The woman had a pulse, but it was super rapid. On first glance, she clearly had multiple fractures and a bad head bleed. With the sheer number of times she’d been injured, I didn’t know what was going on internally, but it was bad. She was gargling on her own blood and spitting it up. She was drowning.

A couple of technicians from the hospital came and brought me a tiny emergency kit. It had a blood pressure cuff and an oral airway. All the vital signs indicated the lady was going into shock. She’d lost a lot of blood on the pavement.

I was able to get the oral airway in. A few minutes later, a fire chief showed up. By now, the traffic had backed up so badly, the emergency vehicles couldn’t get in. But he managed to get there another way and gave me a cervical collar (C collar) and an Ambu bag.

I was hyper-focused on what I could do at that moment and what I needed to do next. Her stats were going down, but she still had a pulse. If she lost the pulse or went into a lethal rhythm, I’d have to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). I asked the other people, but nobody else knew CPR, so I wouldn’t have help.

I could tell the lady had a pelvic fracture, and we needed to stabilize her. I directed people how to hold her neck safely and log-roll her flat on the ground. I also needed to put pressure on the back of her head because of all the bleeding. I got people to give me their clothes and tried to do that as I was bagging her.

The windows of her vehicle had all been blown out. I asked somebody to go find her purse with her ID. Then I noticed something …

My heart jumped into my stomach.

A car seat. There was an empty child’s car seat in the back of the car.

I started yelling at everyone, “Look for a baby! Go up and down the embankment and across the road. There might have been a baby in the car!”

But there wasn’t. Thank God. She hadn’t been driving with her child.

At that point, a paramedic came running from behind all the traffic. We did life support together until the ambulance finally arrived.

Emergency medical services got an intravenous line in and used medical anti-shock trousers. Thankfully, I already had the C collar on, and we’d been bagging her, so they could load her very quickly.

I got rid of my bloody gloves. I told a police officer I would come back. And then I went to my doctor’s appointment.

The window at my doctor’s office faced the access road, so the people there had seen all the traffic. They asked me what happened, and I said, “It was me. I saw it happen. I tried to help.” I was a little frazzled.

When I got back to the scene, the police and the fire chief kept thanking me for stopping. Why wouldn’t I stop? It was astounding to realize that they imagined somebody wouldn’t stop in a situation like this.

They told me the lady was alive. She was in the intensive care unit in critical condition, but she had survived. At that moment, I had this overwhelming feeling: God had put me in this exact place at the exact time to save her life.

Looking back, I think about how God ordered my steps. Without the mysterious flat tire, I would’ve gone to the hospital earlier. If my appointment hadn’t been rescheduled, I wouldn’t have been on the access road. All those events brought me there.

Several months later, the woman’s family contacted me and asked if we could meet. I found out more about her injuries. She’d had multiple skull fractures, facial fractures, and a broken jaw. Her upper arm was broken in three places. Her clavicle was broken. She had internal bleeding, a pelvic fracture, and a broken leg. She was 28 years old.

She’d had multiple surgeries, spent 2 months in the ICU, and another 3 months in intensive rehab. But she survived. It was incredible.

We all met up at a McDonald’s. First, her little son — who was the baby I thought might have been in the car — ran up to me and said, “Thank you for saving my mommy’s life.”

Then I turned, and there she was — a beautiful lady looking at me with awe and crying, saying, “It’s me.”

She obviously had gone through a transformation from all the injuries and the medications. She had a little bit of a speech delay, but mentally, she was there. She could walk.

She said, “You’re my angel. God put you there to save my life.” Her family all came up and hugged me. It was so beautiful.

She told me about the accident. She’d been speeding that day, zigzagging through lanes to get around the traffic. And she didn’t have her seatbelt on. She’d driven onto the shoulder to try to pass everyone, but it started narrowing. She clipped somebody’s bumper, went into a tailspin, and collided with a second vehicle, which caused her to flip over and down the embankment.

“God’s given me a new lease on life,” she said, “a fresh start. I will forever wear my seatbelt. And I’m going to do whatever I can to give back to other people because I don’t even feel like I deserve this.”

I just cried.

I’ve been a nurse for 29 years, first on the civilian side and later in the military. I’ve led codes and responded to trauma in a hospital setting or a deployed environment. I was well prepared to do what I did. But doing it under such stress with adrenaline bombarding me ... I’m amazed. I just think God’s hand was on me.

At that time, I was personally going through some things. After my heart surgery, I was in an emotional place where I didn’t feel loved or valued. But when I had that realization — when I knew that I was meant to be there to save her life, I also got the very clear message that I was valued and loved so much.

I know I have a very strong purpose. That day changed my life.
 

US Air Force Lt. Col. Anne Staley is the officer in charge of the Military Training Network, a division of the Defense Health Agency Education and Training Directorate in San Antonio, Texas.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

A week earlier I’d had a heart surgery and was heading out for a post-op appointment when I saw it: I had a flat tire. It didn’t make sense. The tire was brand new, and there was no puncture. But it was flat.

I swapped out the flat for the spare and went off base to a tire shop. While I was there, my surgeon’s office called and rescheduled my appointment for a couple of hours later. That was lucky because by the time the tire was fixed, I had just enough time to get there.

The hospital is right near I-35 in San Antonio, Texas. I got off the freeway and onto the access road and paused to turn into the parking lot. That’s when I heard an enormous crash.

I saw a big poof of white smoke, and a car barreled off the freeway and came rolling down the embankment.

When the car hit the access road, I saw a woman ejected through the windshield. She bounced and landed in the road about 25 feet in front of me.

I put my car in park, grabbed my face mask and gloves, and started running toward her. But another vehicle — a truck towing a trailer — came from behind to drive around me. The driver didn’t realize what had happened and couldn’t stop in time…

The trailer ran over her.

I didn’t know if anyone could’ve survived that, but I went to her. I saw several other bystanders, but they were frozen in shock. I was praying, dear God, if she’s alive, let me do whatever I need to do to save her life.

It was a horrible scene. This poor lady was in a bloody heap in the middle of the road. Her right arm was twisted up under her neck so tightly, she was choking herself. So, the first thing I did was straighten her arm out to protect her airway.

I started yelling at people, “Call 9-1-1! Run to the hospital! Let them know there’s an accident out here, and I need help!”

The woman had a pulse, but it was super rapid. On first glance, she clearly had multiple fractures and a bad head bleed. With the sheer number of times she’d been injured, I didn’t know what was going on internally, but it was bad. She was gargling on her own blood and spitting it up. She was drowning.

A couple of technicians from the hospital came and brought me a tiny emergency kit. It had a blood pressure cuff and an oral airway. All the vital signs indicated the lady was going into shock. She’d lost a lot of blood on the pavement.

I was able to get the oral airway in. A few minutes later, a fire chief showed up. By now, the traffic had backed up so badly, the emergency vehicles couldn’t get in. But he managed to get there another way and gave me a cervical collar (C collar) and an Ambu bag.

I was hyper-focused on what I could do at that moment and what I needed to do next. Her stats were going down, but she still had a pulse. If she lost the pulse or went into a lethal rhythm, I’d have to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). I asked the other people, but nobody else knew CPR, so I wouldn’t have help.

I could tell the lady had a pelvic fracture, and we needed to stabilize her. I directed people how to hold her neck safely and log-roll her flat on the ground. I also needed to put pressure on the back of her head because of all the bleeding. I got people to give me their clothes and tried to do that as I was bagging her.

The windows of her vehicle had all been blown out. I asked somebody to go find her purse with her ID. Then I noticed something …

My heart jumped into my stomach.

A car seat. There was an empty child’s car seat in the back of the car.

I started yelling at everyone, “Look for a baby! Go up and down the embankment and across the road. There might have been a baby in the car!”

But there wasn’t. Thank God. She hadn’t been driving with her child.

At that point, a paramedic came running from behind all the traffic. We did life support together until the ambulance finally arrived.

Emergency medical services got an intravenous line in and used medical anti-shock trousers. Thankfully, I already had the C collar on, and we’d been bagging her, so they could load her very quickly.

I got rid of my bloody gloves. I told a police officer I would come back. And then I went to my doctor’s appointment.

The window at my doctor’s office faced the access road, so the people there had seen all the traffic. They asked me what happened, and I said, “It was me. I saw it happen. I tried to help.” I was a little frazzled.

When I got back to the scene, the police and the fire chief kept thanking me for stopping. Why wouldn’t I stop? It was astounding to realize that they imagined somebody wouldn’t stop in a situation like this.

They told me the lady was alive. She was in the intensive care unit in critical condition, but she had survived. At that moment, I had this overwhelming feeling: God had put me in this exact place at the exact time to save her life.

Looking back, I think about how God ordered my steps. Without the mysterious flat tire, I would’ve gone to the hospital earlier. If my appointment hadn’t been rescheduled, I wouldn’t have been on the access road. All those events brought me there.

Several months later, the woman’s family contacted me and asked if we could meet. I found out more about her injuries. She’d had multiple skull fractures, facial fractures, and a broken jaw. Her upper arm was broken in three places. Her clavicle was broken. She had internal bleeding, a pelvic fracture, and a broken leg. She was 28 years old.

She’d had multiple surgeries, spent 2 months in the ICU, and another 3 months in intensive rehab. But she survived. It was incredible.

We all met up at a McDonald’s. First, her little son — who was the baby I thought might have been in the car — ran up to me and said, “Thank you for saving my mommy’s life.”

Then I turned, and there she was — a beautiful lady looking at me with awe and crying, saying, “It’s me.”

She obviously had gone through a transformation from all the injuries and the medications. She had a little bit of a speech delay, but mentally, she was there. She could walk.

She said, “You’re my angel. God put you there to save my life.” Her family all came up and hugged me. It was so beautiful.

She told me about the accident. She’d been speeding that day, zigzagging through lanes to get around the traffic. And she didn’t have her seatbelt on. She’d driven onto the shoulder to try to pass everyone, but it started narrowing. She clipped somebody’s bumper, went into a tailspin, and collided with a second vehicle, which caused her to flip over and down the embankment.

“God’s given me a new lease on life,” she said, “a fresh start. I will forever wear my seatbelt. And I’m going to do whatever I can to give back to other people because I don’t even feel like I deserve this.”

I just cried.

I’ve been a nurse for 29 years, first on the civilian side and later in the military. I’ve led codes and responded to trauma in a hospital setting or a deployed environment. I was well prepared to do what I did. But doing it under such stress with adrenaline bombarding me ... I’m amazed. I just think God’s hand was on me.

At that time, I was personally going through some things. After my heart surgery, I was in an emotional place where I didn’t feel loved or valued. But when I had that realization — when I knew that I was meant to be there to save her life, I also got the very clear message that I was valued and loved so much.

I know I have a very strong purpose. That day changed my life.
 

US Air Force Lt. Col. Anne Staley is the officer in charge of the Military Training Network, a division of the Defense Health Agency Education and Training Directorate in San Antonio, Texas.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

A week earlier I’d had a heart surgery and was heading out for a post-op appointment when I saw it: I had a flat tire. It didn’t make sense. The tire was brand new, and there was no puncture. But it was flat.

I swapped out the flat for the spare and went off base to a tire shop. While I was there, my surgeon’s office called and rescheduled my appointment for a couple of hours later. That was lucky because by the time the tire was fixed, I had just enough time to get there.

The hospital is right near I-35 in San Antonio, Texas. I got off the freeway and onto the access road and paused to turn into the parking lot. That’s when I heard an enormous crash.

I saw a big poof of white smoke, and a car barreled off the freeway and came rolling down the embankment.

When the car hit the access road, I saw a woman ejected through the windshield. She bounced and landed in the road about 25 feet in front of me.

I put my car in park, grabbed my face mask and gloves, and started running toward her. But another vehicle — a truck towing a trailer — came from behind to drive around me. The driver didn’t realize what had happened and couldn’t stop in time…

The trailer ran over her.

I didn’t know if anyone could’ve survived that, but I went to her. I saw several other bystanders, but they were frozen in shock. I was praying, dear God, if she’s alive, let me do whatever I need to do to save her life.

It was a horrible scene. This poor lady was in a bloody heap in the middle of the road. Her right arm was twisted up under her neck so tightly, she was choking herself. So, the first thing I did was straighten her arm out to protect her airway.

I started yelling at people, “Call 9-1-1! Run to the hospital! Let them know there’s an accident out here, and I need help!”

The woman had a pulse, but it was super rapid. On first glance, she clearly had multiple fractures and a bad head bleed. With the sheer number of times she’d been injured, I didn’t know what was going on internally, but it was bad. She was gargling on her own blood and spitting it up. She was drowning.

A couple of technicians from the hospital came and brought me a tiny emergency kit. It had a blood pressure cuff and an oral airway. All the vital signs indicated the lady was going into shock. She’d lost a lot of blood on the pavement.

I was able to get the oral airway in. A few minutes later, a fire chief showed up. By now, the traffic had backed up so badly, the emergency vehicles couldn’t get in. But he managed to get there another way and gave me a cervical collar (C collar) and an Ambu bag.

I was hyper-focused on what I could do at that moment and what I needed to do next. Her stats were going down, but she still had a pulse. If she lost the pulse or went into a lethal rhythm, I’d have to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). I asked the other people, but nobody else knew CPR, so I wouldn’t have help.

I could tell the lady had a pelvic fracture, and we needed to stabilize her. I directed people how to hold her neck safely and log-roll her flat on the ground. I also needed to put pressure on the back of her head because of all the bleeding. I got people to give me their clothes and tried to do that as I was bagging her.

The windows of her vehicle had all been blown out. I asked somebody to go find her purse with her ID. Then I noticed something …

My heart jumped into my stomach.

A car seat. There was an empty child’s car seat in the back of the car.

I started yelling at everyone, “Look for a baby! Go up and down the embankment and across the road. There might have been a baby in the car!”

But there wasn’t. Thank God. She hadn’t been driving with her child.

At that point, a paramedic came running from behind all the traffic. We did life support together until the ambulance finally arrived.

Emergency medical services got an intravenous line in and used medical anti-shock trousers. Thankfully, I already had the C collar on, and we’d been bagging her, so they could load her very quickly.

I got rid of my bloody gloves. I told a police officer I would come back. And then I went to my doctor’s appointment.

The window at my doctor’s office faced the access road, so the people there had seen all the traffic. They asked me what happened, and I said, “It was me. I saw it happen. I tried to help.” I was a little frazzled.

When I got back to the scene, the police and the fire chief kept thanking me for stopping. Why wouldn’t I stop? It was astounding to realize that they imagined somebody wouldn’t stop in a situation like this.

They told me the lady was alive. She was in the intensive care unit in critical condition, but she had survived. At that moment, I had this overwhelming feeling: God had put me in this exact place at the exact time to save her life.

Looking back, I think about how God ordered my steps. Without the mysterious flat tire, I would’ve gone to the hospital earlier. If my appointment hadn’t been rescheduled, I wouldn’t have been on the access road. All those events brought me there.

Several months later, the woman’s family contacted me and asked if we could meet. I found out more about her injuries. She’d had multiple skull fractures, facial fractures, and a broken jaw. Her upper arm was broken in three places. Her clavicle was broken. She had internal bleeding, a pelvic fracture, and a broken leg. She was 28 years old.

She’d had multiple surgeries, spent 2 months in the ICU, and another 3 months in intensive rehab. But she survived. It was incredible.

We all met up at a McDonald’s. First, her little son — who was the baby I thought might have been in the car — ran up to me and said, “Thank you for saving my mommy’s life.”

Then I turned, and there she was — a beautiful lady looking at me with awe and crying, saying, “It’s me.”

She obviously had gone through a transformation from all the injuries and the medications. She had a little bit of a speech delay, but mentally, she was there. She could walk.

She said, “You’re my angel. God put you there to save my life.” Her family all came up and hugged me. It was so beautiful.

She told me about the accident. She’d been speeding that day, zigzagging through lanes to get around the traffic. And she didn’t have her seatbelt on. She’d driven onto the shoulder to try to pass everyone, but it started narrowing. She clipped somebody’s bumper, went into a tailspin, and collided with a second vehicle, which caused her to flip over and down the embankment.

“God’s given me a new lease on life,” she said, “a fresh start. I will forever wear my seatbelt. And I’m going to do whatever I can to give back to other people because I don’t even feel like I deserve this.”

I just cried.

I’ve been a nurse for 29 years, first on the civilian side and later in the military. I’ve led codes and responded to trauma in a hospital setting or a deployed environment. I was well prepared to do what I did. But doing it under such stress with adrenaline bombarding me ... I’m amazed. I just think God’s hand was on me.

At that time, I was personally going through some things. After my heart surgery, I was in an emotional place where I didn’t feel loved or valued. But when I had that realization — when I knew that I was meant to be there to save her life, I also got the very clear message that I was valued and loved so much.

I know I have a very strong purpose. That day changed my life.
 

US Air Force Lt. Col. Anne Staley is the officer in charge of the Military Training Network, a division of the Defense Health Agency Education and Training Directorate in San Antonio, Texas.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When clinicians suspect lung fibrosis and particularly its most devastating form, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a noninvasive artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital diagnostic tool may identify subtype classifications facilitating proper treatment at earlier disease stages. On January 16, 2024, the tool, Fibresolve, developed and produced by the digital biomarker company IMVARIA Inc., received the first-ever US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization of a Breakthrough Designated AI diagnostic tool. Simultaneously, the American Medical Association adopted relevant CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] billing codes, according to an IMVARIA Inc. press release.

Diagnosis and treatment of the lung inflammation and fibrosis that drive IPF lung function decline are often long delayed, Joshua Reicher, MD, CEO of IMVARIA Inc. and an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (California) University said in an interview for CHEST Physician.

“There are multiple challenges with this somewhat uncommon condition. Part of the frequent delays in diagnosis is the lack of access to local experts. Another part is vague presenting symptoms like general fatigue, for example, which can have an overlap with a lot of other conditions. The published median average delay in diagnosis after first presenting symptoms is about 2.2 years. But it’s often longer.”
 

Determining Type of Lung Fibrosis

Conventional diagnosis based on lab tests for inflammatory biomarkers and extensive clinical history is “fairly straightforward,” Dr. Reicher continued, for determining that a patient has some form of lung fibrosis. “The critical element is to find out what type of lung fibrosis and then begin appropriate therapy. The literature lists about 200 different subtypes, but the top 5 make up the majority of cases. The focus with Fibresolve is on improving noninvasive sensitivity, especially for the cases that are less straightforward, but rather indeterminate and therefore particularly challenging,” Dr. Reicher stated.

Will adjunctive diagnostic use of Fibresolve obviate the need for invasive confirmatory tests? Dr. Reicher was cautious. “We like to be thoughtful about our positioning of artificial intelligence and prefer to say that it puts complementary information in the hands of the physician. It’s really up to the clinicians to decide if they have sufficient information to avoid that biopsy.” The uniqueness of Fibresolve, Dr. Reicher pointed out, is that it is widely accessible and does not require hyper-specialized providers. “You can use it at any center that has standard CT scans.”
 

Reducing Burden on Physicians

An essential feature of Fibresolve use is that its software analysis is conducted centrally. “Part of our goal is to reduce the burden on the clinicians as much as possible, and we try to offload as much of the technical work from them as we can.”

The clinicians send images to IMVARIA Inc. (typically electronically) where they are processed rapidly, and a report is generated with outputs identifying the specific classification, perhaps with one indicating that the findings are suggestive of IPF. Dr. Reicher observed that the Fibresolve’s deep learning algorithm was trained on thousands of cases. “We’re very confident in the results that it puts out,” he said.

“We’re very excited. This is the first FDA-authorized diagnostic tool of any type in lung fibrosis. We really think this supports doctors and patients in areas where there’s a high unmet need,” Dr. Reicher said.

IMVARIA is next developing, in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic, a Fibresolve application for use in lung cancer, he said.

When clinicians suspect lung fibrosis and particularly its most devastating form, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a noninvasive artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital diagnostic tool may identify subtype classifications facilitating proper treatment at earlier disease stages. On January 16, 2024, the tool, Fibresolve, developed and produced by the digital biomarker company IMVARIA Inc., received the first-ever US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization of a Breakthrough Designated AI diagnostic tool. Simultaneously, the American Medical Association adopted relevant CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] billing codes, according to an IMVARIA Inc. press release.

Diagnosis and treatment of the lung inflammation and fibrosis that drive IPF lung function decline are often long delayed, Joshua Reicher, MD, CEO of IMVARIA Inc. and an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (California) University said in an interview for CHEST Physician.

“There are multiple challenges with this somewhat uncommon condition. Part of the frequent delays in diagnosis is the lack of access to local experts. Another part is vague presenting symptoms like general fatigue, for example, which can have an overlap with a lot of other conditions. The published median average delay in diagnosis after first presenting symptoms is about 2.2 years. But it’s often longer.”
 

Determining Type of Lung Fibrosis

Conventional diagnosis based on lab tests for inflammatory biomarkers and extensive clinical history is “fairly straightforward,” Dr. Reicher continued, for determining that a patient has some form of lung fibrosis. “The critical element is to find out what type of lung fibrosis and then begin appropriate therapy. The literature lists about 200 different subtypes, but the top 5 make up the majority of cases. The focus with Fibresolve is on improving noninvasive sensitivity, especially for the cases that are less straightforward, but rather indeterminate and therefore particularly challenging,” Dr. Reicher stated.

Will adjunctive diagnostic use of Fibresolve obviate the need for invasive confirmatory tests? Dr. Reicher was cautious. “We like to be thoughtful about our positioning of artificial intelligence and prefer to say that it puts complementary information in the hands of the physician. It’s really up to the clinicians to decide if they have sufficient information to avoid that biopsy.” The uniqueness of Fibresolve, Dr. Reicher pointed out, is that it is widely accessible and does not require hyper-specialized providers. “You can use it at any center that has standard CT scans.”
 

Reducing Burden on Physicians

An essential feature of Fibresolve use is that its software analysis is conducted centrally. “Part of our goal is to reduce the burden on the clinicians as much as possible, and we try to offload as much of the technical work from them as we can.”

The clinicians send images to IMVARIA Inc. (typically electronically) where they are processed rapidly, and a report is generated with outputs identifying the specific classification, perhaps with one indicating that the findings are suggestive of IPF. Dr. Reicher observed that the Fibresolve’s deep learning algorithm was trained on thousands of cases. “We’re very confident in the results that it puts out,” he said.

“We’re very excited. This is the first FDA-authorized diagnostic tool of any type in lung fibrosis. We really think this supports doctors and patients in areas where there’s a high unmet need,” Dr. Reicher said.

IMVARIA is next developing, in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic, a Fibresolve application for use in lung cancer, he said.

When clinicians suspect lung fibrosis and particularly its most devastating form, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a noninvasive artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital diagnostic tool may identify subtype classifications facilitating proper treatment at earlier disease stages. On January 16, 2024, the tool, Fibresolve, developed and produced by the digital biomarker company IMVARIA Inc., received the first-ever US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization of a Breakthrough Designated AI diagnostic tool. Simultaneously, the American Medical Association adopted relevant CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] billing codes, according to an IMVARIA Inc. press release.

Diagnosis and treatment of the lung inflammation and fibrosis that drive IPF lung function decline are often long delayed, Joshua Reicher, MD, CEO of IMVARIA Inc. and an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford (California) University said in an interview for CHEST Physician.

“There are multiple challenges with this somewhat uncommon condition. Part of the frequent delays in diagnosis is the lack of access to local experts. Another part is vague presenting symptoms like general fatigue, for example, which can have an overlap with a lot of other conditions. The published median average delay in diagnosis after first presenting symptoms is about 2.2 years. But it’s often longer.”
 

Determining Type of Lung Fibrosis

Conventional diagnosis based on lab tests for inflammatory biomarkers and extensive clinical history is “fairly straightforward,” Dr. Reicher continued, for determining that a patient has some form of lung fibrosis. “The critical element is to find out what type of lung fibrosis and then begin appropriate therapy. The literature lists about 200 different subtypes, but the top 5 make up the majority of cases. The focus with Fibresolve is on improving noninvasive sensitivity, especially for the cases that are less straightforward, but rather indeterminate and therefore particularly challenging,” Dr. Reicher stated.

Will adjunctive diagnostic use of Fibresolve obviate the need for invasive confirmatory tests? Dr. Reicher was cautious. “We like to be thoughtful about our positioning of artificial intelligence and prefer to say that it puts complementary information in the hands of the physician. It’s really up to the clinicians to decide if they have sufficient information to avoid that biopsy.” The uniqueness of Fibresolve, Dr. Reicher pointed out, is that it is widely accessible and does not require hyper-specialized providers. “You can use it at any center that has standard CT scans.”
 

Reducing Burden on Physicians

An essential feature of Fibresolve use is that its software analysis is conducted centrally. “Part of our goal is to reduce the burden on the clinicians as much as possible, and we try to offload as much of the technical work from them as we can.”

The clinicians send images to IMVARIA Inc. (typically electronically) where they are processed rapidly, and a report is generated with outputs identifying the specific classification, perhaps with one indicating that the findings are suggestive of IPF. Dr. Reicher observed that the Fibresolve’s deep learning algorithm was trained on thousands of cases. “We’re very confident in the results that it puts out,” he said.

“We’re very excited. This is the first FDA-authorized diagnostic tool of any type in lung fibrosis. We really think this supports doctors and patients in areas where there’s a high unmet need,” Dr. Reicher said.

IMVARIA is next developing, in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic, a Fibresolve application for use in lung cancer, he said.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

A series of Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes have been recalled by the manufacturer because of a risk for burns and fire, according to a statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

However, “this recall is a correction, not a product removal,” according to the FDA. Clinicians do not need to cease using these devices, but they must be mindful of the risks and take the precautions outlined by Olympus.

“While health care providers may choose to continue using the Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes, to maximize patient safety and mitigate any potential risk to patient health, the FDA and Olympus advise users not to perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen, and carefully follow the warnings provided in the Olympus operators manual and highlighted in its October 12, 2023, letter to customers,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The recall affects Olympus bronchofiberscopes and bronchovideoscopes distributed between January 1, 2001, and September 11, 2023. According to the FDA statement, use of these devices may cause serious adverse events to patients and to clinicians. Patients treated with these devices could experience critical burns in the airways or lungs, airway bleeding, breathing difficulty, apnea, loss of consciousness, or death. Healthcare workers using the devices also may be affected in the event of combustion. 

On October 12, 2023, Olympus sent an Urgent Medical Device Corrective Action letter. This letter outlined the risks associated with the devices as follows: 

“There is a risk of endobronchial combustion if high-frequency cauterization is performed while supplying oxygen [and/or] the electrode section of the electrosurgical accessory is too close to the distal end of the endoscope.” 

To mitigate this risk, Olympus reminds clinicians to heed the warnings found in the device operations manuals, notably these three: 

• Do not perform high-frequency cauterization while supplying oxygen.
• Confirm that the electrode section of the electrosurgical device used with the endoscope is at a safe distance from the distal end of the endoscope.
• Only use the Olympus bronchoscopes with compatible high-frequency therapy equipment as described in the operations manual.

The letter also asks facilities that have purchased any of the affected bronchoscopes to ensure that all personnel are “completely knowledgeable and thoroughly aware” of the warnings stated in the operations manual, and it states that users may continue to use the devices according to the current instructions and with attention to the warnings.
 

Olympus Explains

“Olympus Corporation initiated this Field Corrective Action (FCA) to address complaints of endobronchial combustion occurring when high-frequency-compatible bronchoscopes are used during therapeutic procedures in combination with high-frequency therapy equipment,” a spokeswoman for Olympus said in an interview. 

“This corrective action was taken following a thorough assessment of adverse event complaints involving serious patient injury; Olympus takes these complaints very seriously. Patient safety is our top priority,” the spokeswoman said. “The customer notification is intended to remind users of existing warnings not to use oxygen while performing high-frequency cauterization and appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment.” 

The products are not being removed, and no labeling changes are being made at this time, she said. 

The bottom line for clinicians: “Users can continue to use Olympus bronchoscopes according to the instructions provided in the operation manual and the customer letter,” the Olympus spokeswoman told this news organization. “This is not a removal action. There are no changes to the existing operation manual regarding compatibility of bronchoscopes with high-frequency therapy equipment,” she said.

“In terms of actions going forward, in addition to the communication provided through this Field Corrective Action, which is intended to remind users of recommendations on oxygen use and clarify the appropriate distance while using high-frequency therapy equipment, the root cause and potential contributing factors are currently under investigation through a formal CAPA (Corrective Action Preventative Action) process. Olympus will take any appropriate enhancement action based on investigation results,” according to the Olympus spokeswoman.

In 2016, this news organization reported that Olympus made medical headlines by recalling its TJF-Q180V duodenoscope in the wake of Congressional investigations after the product was linked to spreading bacterial infections because of design flaws. 

United States customers can contact Olympus by phone at 1-800-848-9024 (option 1) with questions about the recall, and healthcare professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems associated with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program via an online form, regular mail, or fax.

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

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.