Pulmonology

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Both blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET) and standard care treatment (ST) similarly reduced treatment failure following acute exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomized 152 adults with a mean age of 70 years to BET or a placebo (if eosinophil counts were less than 2%) or to standard care treatment regardless of baseline eosinophil counts; the final population available for analysis included 47 patients in the blood eosinophil group and 46 in the primary care group, with 73 and 71 exacerbations, respectively.
• Participants were assessed at baseline and at day 14, day 30, and day 90 after exacerbation; the primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure at 30 days post exacerbation, defined as any need for retreatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalization, or death; secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and visual analogue score respiratory symptoms.
• Participants were recruited from 14 general practices between November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020; the study was terminated on April 30, 2023, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

TAKEAWAY:

• BET was noninferior to ST in a noninferiority analysis.
• At 30 days post exacerbation, 14 treatment failures had occurred in the BET group and 23 in the ST group; the relative risk was 0.60 (P = .070).
• The frequency of adverse events was similar between the groups; the most common adverse events were glycosuria and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2% in the BET group and 1% in the ST group for both event types), and no deaths occurred during the study period.
• Subgroup analysis showed the greatest benefit in both groups was to patients with higher eosinophil counts who received prednisolone.

IN PRACTICE: 

“There was improvement of lung function, quality of life, and symptoms in exacerbations with low eosinophil count independent of whether placebo or prednisolone was prescribed,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Sanjay Ramakrishnan, MBBS, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. The study was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine .

LIMITATIONS:

A key limitation was an error in the randomization code that prevented the trial’s completion as a superiority study; other limitations included the relatively low number of exacerbations associated with low eosinophil counts and reduction in the recommended length of treatment with prednisolone during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Ramakrishnan disclosed personal salary support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, an unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca to his institution, and speaker fees and conference travel support from AstraZeneca, all unrelated to the current study.

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

TOPLINE:

Both blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET) and standard care treatment (ST) similarly reduced treatment failure following acute exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomized 152 adults with a mean age of 70 years to BET or a placebo (if eosinophil counts were less than 2%) or to standard care treatment regardless of baseline eosinophil counts; the final population available for analysis included 47 patients in the blood eosinophil group and 46 in the primary care group, with 73 and 71 exacerbations, respectively.
• Participants were assessed at baseline and at day 14, day 30, and day 90 after exacerbation; the primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure at 30 days post exacerbation, defined as any need for retreatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalization, or death; secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and visual analogue score respiratory symptoms.
• Participants were recruited from 14 general practices between November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020; the study was terminated on April 30, 2023, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

TAKEAWAY:

• BET was noninferior to ST in a noninferiority analysis.
• At 30 days post exacerbation, 14 treatment failures had occurred in the BET group and 23 in the ST group; the relative risk was 0.60 (P = .070).
• The frequency of adverse events was similar between the groups; the most common adverse events were glycosuria and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2% in the BET group and 1% in the ST group for both event types), and no deaths occurred during the study period.
• Subgroup analysis showed the greatest benefit in both groups was to patients with higher eosinophil counts who received prednisolone.

IN PRACTICE: 

“There was improvement of lung function, quality of life, and symptoms in exacerbations with low eosinophil count independent of whether placebo or prednisolone was prescribed,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Sanjay Ramakrishnan, MBBS, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. The study was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine .

LIMITATIONS:

A key limitation was an error in the randomization code that prevented the trial’s completion as a superiority study; other limitations included the relatively low number of exacerbations associated with low eosinophil counts and reduction in the recommended length of treatment with prednisolone during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Ramakrishnan disclosed personal salary support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, an unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca to his institution, and speaker fees and conference travel support from AstraZeneca, all unrelated to the current study.

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

TOPLINE:

Both blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET) and standard care treatment (ST) similarly reduced treatment failure following acute exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomized 152 adults with a mean age of 70 years to BET or a placebo (if eosinophil counts were less than 2%) or to standard care treatment regardless of baseline eosinophil counts; the final population available for analysis included 47 patients in the blood eosinophil group and 46 in the primary care group, with 73 and 71 exacerbations, respectively.
• Participants were assessed at baseline and at day 14, day 30, and day 90 after exacerbation; the primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure at 30 days post exacerbation, defined as any need for retreatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalization, or death; secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and visual analogue score respiratory symptoms.
• Participants were recruited from 14 general practices between November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020; the study was terminated on April 30, 2023, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

TAKEAWAY:

• BET was noninferior to ST in a noninferiority analysis.
• At 30 days post exacerbation, 14 treatment failures had occurred in the BET group and 23 in the ST group; the relative risk was 0.60 (P = .070).
• The frequency of adverse events was similar between the groups; the most common adverse events were glycosuria and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2% in the BET group and 1% in the ST group for both event types), and no deaths occurred during the study period.
• Subgroup analysis showed the greatest benefit in both groups was to patients with higher eosinophil counts who received prednisolone.

IN PRACTICE: 

“There was improvement of lung function, quality of life, and symptoms in exacerbations with low eosinophil count independent of whether placebo or prednisolone was prescribed,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Sanjay Ramakrishnan, MBBS, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. The study was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine .

LIMITATIONS:

A key limitation was an error in the randomization code that prevented the trial’s completion as a superiority study; other limitations included the relatively low number of exacerbations associated with low eosinophil counts and reduction in the recommended length of treatment with prednisolone during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Ramakrishnan disclosed personal salary support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, an unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca to his institution, and speaker fees and conference travel support from AstraZeneca, all unrelated to the current study.

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

Use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis significantly reduced the number of pulmonary artery branches with total or subtotal occlusions in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, based on data from more than 100 individuals.

Reduced distal vascular volume is a significant predictor of 30-day and 90-day mortality in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, and pulmonary obstruction is often the cause, wrote Riyaz Bashir, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Some studies of catheter-based treatments have shown a reduction in pulmonary artery (PA) obstruction in PE patients, but the impact has been modest, the researchers said.

“The recently published RESCUE (Recombinant tPA by Endovascular Administration for the Treatment of Submassive PE Using CDT for the Reduction of Thrombus Burden) trial showed a 35.9% reduction in PA obstruction using the Refined Modified Miller Index (RMMI), the largest reduction of all published catheter studies with core lab measurement, with similar doses of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA),” the researchers wrote.

The Bashir endovascular catheter was designed to maximize thrombus reduction via a pharmacomechanical infusion. The catheter features an expandable basket of 6 nitinol-reinforced infusion limbs.

“There are three crucial goals that we want to accomplish in patients who have a severe pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Bashir said in an interview. “Those include, in the order of importance, survival, recovery of right ventricular function, and resolution of blocked pulmonary arteries; both segmental and proximal pulmonary arteries,” he said.

Most previous studies have focused on the first two goals, but they still need to evaluate the resolution of PA blockages carefully, said Dr. Bashir. “In our clinical practice, we have seen a large number of patients who develop debilitating shortness of breath from these blockages. We decided to carefully evaluate these blockages before and after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis with the Bashir endovascular catheter using the core lab data from the RESCUE study,” he said.

In the current study published in JACC: Advances), the researchers used baseline and 48-hour posttreatment contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography angiography of adult PE patients with right ventricular dilatation.

The study population included 107 adults with acute intermediate-risk PE who were treated with pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis (PM-CDT) at 18 sites in the United States. Of these, 98 had intermediate high-risk PE with elevated troponin and/or brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and 102 had bilateral PE.

The primary endpoint was the change in the number of segmental and proximal PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions (defined as > 65%) after 48 hours compared to baseline. Occlusions were assessed using McNemar’s test.

Patients with bilateral PE received two Bashir catheters; those with unilateral PE received one catheter each.

Each patient received a pulse spray of 2 mg of recombinant tPA (r-tPA) into each lung, followed by 5 mg of r-tPA over 5 hours; the total dose was 7 mg of r-tPA for patients with unilateral PEs and 14 mg for those with bilateral PEs, the researchers said. The median times for catheter placement and total procedure were 15 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively.

The number of segmental PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 40.5% at baseline to 11.7% at 48 hours, and proximal PA branch total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 28.7% at baseline to 11.0% at 48 hours (P < 0.0001 for both).

The magnitude of the reductions in both total and subtotal occlusions of segmental arteries was significantly correlated with the extent of right ventricle recovery (measured by the reduction in right ventricular/left ventricular ratio) with a correlation coefficient of 0.287 (P = .0026); however, this correlation was not observed in the proximal PA arteries (correlation coefficient 0.132, P = .173).

One major bleeding event occurred within 72 hours in a patient who also experienced a device-related left common iliac vein thrombosis while not taking anticoagulation medication, and one death unrelated to PE occurred within 30 days.

“The two findings that surprised me include, first, a more than 70% reduction in total and subtotal occlusions in the segmental arteries with such a low dose of r-tPA and, second, the resolution of the blockages was seen not only in the arteries where the device was placed but also at remote sites away from the location of the catheter,” Dr. Bashir told this news organization.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of long-term clinical follow-up outcomes data and lack of comparison groups who underwent other treatments.

However, “This study implies that we now have a safe therapy for these patients that improves survival and right ventricular recovery in addition to dramatically improving blocked pulmonary arteries,” Dr. Bashir said.

As for additional research, “we need all the current and future prospective pulmonary embolism studies to include an assessment of pulmonary artery blockage resolution as an essential endpoint,” he said.
 

Catheter Expands Treatment Options

The current study, a subgroup analysis of the RESCUE trial, was one of the first to examine the impact of catheter-directed lysis on distal occlusions, study coauthor Parth M. Rali, MD, said in an interview.

To this point, literature has been limited to evaluation for proximal disease, said Dr. Rali, director of thoracic surgery and medicine and part of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia.

Dr. Rali said he was encouraged to see confirmation that the BEC catheter, because of its design, works in patients with proximal or distal occlusive disease.

In clinical practice, “the catheter provides an additional option for care in patients with multiple distal occlusive disease when a systemic tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), may put patient at high bleeding risk,” Dr. Rali said.

Looking ahead, a prospective, observational multicenter study would be useful to validate the findings from the post hoc analysis of the current study, he noted.

The study was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Thrombolex Inc., a medical device company developing interventional catheter-based therapies for the rapid and effective treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disorders. Dr. Bashir is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Thrombolex Inc. Dr. Rali disclosed serving as a consultant for Thrombolex, Inari Medical, Viz AI, and ThinkSono.

Use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis significantly reduced the number of pulmonary artery branches with total or subtotal occlusions in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, based on data from more than 100 individuals.

Reduced distal vascular volume is a significant predictor of 30-day and 90-day mortality in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, and pulmonary obstruction is often the cause, wrote Riyaz Bashir, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Some studies of catheter-based treatments have shown a reduction in pulmonary artery (PA) obstruction in PE patients, but the impact has been modest, the researchers said.

“The recently published RESCUE (Recombinant tPA by Endovascular Administration for the Treatment of Submassive PE Using CDT for the Reduction of Thrombus Burden) trial showed a 35.9% reduction in PA obstruction using the Refined Modified Miller Index (RMMI), the largest reduction of all published catheter studies with core lab measurement, with similar doses of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA),” the researchers wrote.

The Bashir endovascular catheter was designed to maximize thrombus reduction via a pharmacomechanical infusion. The catheter features an expandable basket of 6 nitinol-reinforced infusion limbs.

“There are three crucial goals that we want to accomplish in patients who have a severe pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Bashir said in an interview. “Those include, in the order of importance, survival, recovery of right ventricular function, and resolution of blocked pulmonary arteries; both segmental and proximal pulmonary arteries,” he said.

Most previous studies have focused on the first two goals, but they still need to evaluate the resolution of PA blockages carefully, said Dr. Bashir. “In our clinical practice, we have seen a large number of patients who develop debilitating shortness of breath from these blockages. We decided to carefully evaluate these blockages before and after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis with the Bashir endovascular catheter using the core lab data from the RESCUE study,” he said.

In the current study published in JACC: Advances), the researchers used baseline and 48-hour posttreatment contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography angiography of adult PE patients with right ventricular dilatation.

The study population included 107 adults with acute intermediate-risk PE who were treated with pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis (PM-CDT) at 18 sites in the United States. Of these, 98 had intermediate high-risk PE with elevated troponin and/or brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and 102 had bilateral PE.

The primary endpoint was the change in the number of segmental and proximal PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions (defined as > 65%) after 48 hours compared to baseline. Occlusions were assessed using McNemar’s test.

Patients with bilateral PE received two Bashir catheters; those with unilateral PE received one catheter each.

Each patient received a pulse spray of 2 mg of recombinant tPA (r-tPA) into each lung, followed by 5 mg of r-tPA over 5 hours; the total dose was 7 mg of r-tPA for patients with unilateral PEs and 14 mg for those with bilateral PEs, the researchers said. The median times for catheter placement and total procedure were 15 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively.

The number of segmental PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 40.5% at baseline to 11.7% at 48 hours, and proximal PA branch total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 28.7% at baseline to 11.0% at 48 hours (P < 0.0001 for both).

The magnitude of the reductions in both total and subtotal occlusions of segmental arteries was significantly correlated with the extent of right ventricle recovery (measured by the reduction in right ventricular/left ventricular ratio) with a correlation coefficient of 0.287 (P = .0026); however, this correlation was not observed in the proximal PA arteries (correlation coefficient 0.132, P = .173).

One major bleeding event occurred within 72 hours in a patient who also experienced a device-related left common iliac vein thrombosis while not taking anticoagulation medication, and one death unrelated to PE occurred within 30 days.

“The two findings that surprised me include, first, a more than 70% reduction in total and subtotal occlusions in the segmental arteries with such a low dose of r-tPA and, second, the resolution of the blockages was seen not only in the arteries where the device was placed but also at remote sites away from the location of the catheter,” Dr. Bashir told this news organization.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of long-term clinical follow-up outcomes data and lack of comparison groups who underwent other treatments.

However, “This study implies that we now have a safe therapy for these patients that improves survival and right ventricular recovery in addition to dramatically improving blocked pulmonary arteries,” Dr. Bashir said.

As for additional research, “we need all the current and future prospective pulmonary embolism studies to include an assessment of pulmonary artery blockage resolution as an essential endpoint,” he said.
 

Catheter Expands Treatment Options

The current study, a subgroup analysis of the RESCUE trial, was one of the first to examine the impact of catheter-directed lysis on distal occlusions, study coauthor Parth M. Rali, MD, said in an interview.

To this point, literature has been limited to evaluation for proximal disease, said Dr. Rali, director of thoracic surgery and medicine and part of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia.

Dr. Rali said he was encouraged to see confirmation that the BEC catheter, because of its design, works in patients with proximal or distal occlusive disease.

In clinical practice, “the catheter provides an additional option for care in patients with multiple distal occlusive disease when a systemic tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), may put patient at high bleeding risk,” Dr. Rali said.

Looking ahead, a prospective, observational multicenter study would be useful to validate the findings from the post hoc analysis of the current study, he noted.

The study was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Thrombolex Inc., a medical device company developing interventional catheter-based therapies for the rapid and effective treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disorders. Dr. Bashir is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Thrombolex Inc. Dr. Rali disclosed serving as a consultant for Thrombolex, Inari Medical, Viz AI, and ThinkSono.

Use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis significantly reduced the number of pulmonary artery branches with total or subtotal occlusions in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, based on data from more than 100 individuals.

Reduced distal vascular volume is a significant predictor of 30-day and 90-day mortality in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, and pulmonary obstruction is often the cause, wrote Riyaz Bashir, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Some studies of catheter-based treatments have shown a reduction in pulmonary artery (PA) obstruction in PE patients, but the impact has been modest, the researchers said.

“The recently published RESCUE (Recombinant tPA by Endovascular Administration for the Treatment of Submassive PE Using CDT for the Reduction of Thrombus Burden) trial showed a 35.9% reduction in PA obstruction using the Refined Modified Miller Index (RMMI), the largest reduction of all published catheter studies with core lab measurement, with similar doses of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA),” the researchers wrote.

The Bashir endovascular catheter was designed to maximize thrombus reduction via a pharmacomechanical infusion. The catheter features an expandable basket of 6 nitinol-reinforced infusion limbs.

“There are three crucial goals that we want to accomplish in patients who have a severe pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Bashir said in an interview. “Those include, in the order of importance, survival, recovery of right ventricular function, and resolution of blocked pulmonary arteries; both segmental and proximal pulmonary arteries,” he said.

Most previous studies have focused on the first two goals, but they still need to evaluate the resolution of PA blockages carefully, said Dr. Bashir. “In our clinical practice, we have seen a large number of patients who develop debilitating shortness of breath from these blockages. We decided to carefully evaluate these blockages before and after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis with the Bashir endovascular catheter using the core lab data from the RESCUE study,” he said.

In the current study published in JACC: Advances), the researchers used baseline and 48-hour posttreatment contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography angiography of adult PE patients with right ventricular dilatation.

The study population included 107 adults with acute intermediate-risk PE who were treated with pharmacomechanical catheter-directory thrombolysis (PM-CDT) at 18 sites in the United States. Of these, 98 had intermediate high-risk PE with elevated troponin and/or brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and 102 had bilateral PE.

The primary endpoint was the change in the number of segmental and proximal PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions (defined as > 65%) after 48 hours compared to baseline. Occlusions were assessed using McNemar’s test.

Patients with bilateral PE received two Bashir catheters; those with unilateral PE received one catheter each.

Each patient received a pulse spray of 2 mg of recombinant tPA (r-tPA) into each lung, followed by 5 mg of r-tPA over 5 hours; the total dose was 7 mg of r-tPA for patients with unilateral PEs and 14 mg for those with bilateral PEs, the researchers said. The median times for catheter placement and total procedure were 15 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively.

The number of segmental PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 40.5% at baseline to 11.7% at 48 hours, and proximal PA branch total or subtotal occlusions decreased significantly, from 28.7% at baseline to 11.0% at 48 hours (P < 0.0001 for both).

The magnitude of the reductions in both total and subtotal occlusions of segmental arteries was significantly correlated with the extent of right ventricle recovery (measured by the reduction in right ventricular/left ventricular ratio) with a correlation coefficient of 0.287 (P = .0026); however, this correlation was not observed in the proximal PA arteries (correlation coefficient 0.132, P = .173).

One major bleeding event occurred within 72 hours in a patient who also experienced a device-related left common iliac vein thrombosis while not taking anticoagulation medication, and one death unrelated to PE occurred within 30 days.

“The two findings that surprised me include, first, a more than 70% reduction in total and subtotal occlusions in the segmental arteries with such a low dose of r-tPA and, second, the resolution of the blockages was seen not only in the arteries where the device was placed but also at remote sites away from the location of the catheter,” Dr. Bashir told this news organization.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of long-term clinical follow-up outcomes data and lack of comparison groups who underwent other treatments.

However, “This study implies that we now have a safe therapy for these patients that improves survival and right ventricular recovery in addition to dramatically improving blocked pulmonary arteries,” Dr. Bashir said.

As for additional research, “we need all the current and future prospective pulmonary embolism studies to include an assessment of pulmonary artery blockage resolution as an essential endpoint,” he said.
 

Catheter Expands Treatment Options

The current study, a subgroup analysis of the RESCUE trial, was one of the first to examine the impact of catheter-directed lysis on distal occlusions, study coauthor Parth M. Rali, MD, said in an interview.

To this point, literature has been limited to evaluation for proximal disease, said Dr. Rali, director of thoracic surgery and medicine and part of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia.

Dr. Rali said he was encouraged to see confirmation that the BEC catheter, because of its design, works in patients with proximal or distal occlusive disease.

In clinical practice, “the catheter provides an additional option for care in patients with multiple distal occlusive disease when a systemic tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), may put patient at high bleeding risk,” Dr. Rali said.

Looking ahead, a prospective, observational multicenter study would be useful to validate the findings from the post hoc analysis of the current study, he noted.

The study was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Thrombolex Inc., a medical device company developing interventional catheter-based therapies for the rapid and effective treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disorders. Dr. Bashir is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Thrombolex Inc. Dr. Rali disclosed serving as a consultant for Thrombolex, Inari Medical, Viz AI, and ThinkSono.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sabine Roman, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology and physiology at Lyon University Hospital in France, took the floor at the United European Gastroenterology Week to discuss the link between a chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During a session on extraesophageal symptoms, Dr. Roman relayed two key messages: In patients with a chronic cough, reflux absolutely must be documented, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) must only be prescribed when a diagnosis of GERD has been made.
 

Overestimated Cause

Chronic cough is a widespread problem with a prevalence of between 9% and 33%, according to clinical studies. The root causes of this cough are varied; they’re mainly related to the respiratory system (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, or smoking) and the ear, nose, and throat field (eg, postnasal drip). What’s more, taking certain medicines, notably angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, can also be at the root of this condition.

GERD is also a possible cause of a chronic cough but one that is likely overestimated. A 2023 Spanish study provides evidence of this; GERD was suspected to be linked to cough in 46% of patients (compared with 32% for asthma and 15% for postnasal drip).

The treatments most commonly prescribed include PPIs (79.6%) and respiratory medicines (87.8%). Note that antibiotics are administered empirically to 28.6% of patients. For Roman, “the blame for a chronic cough is too often assigned to GERD, especially considering that in this study, only 43% of patients had seen a gastroenterologist, 27% had an endoscopy, and 24% had undergone esophageal pH monitoring.”

Added to this observation is the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a cough and GERD when the latter is present, even when the patient has had a diagnosis of GERD. Of course, a link between the two does not necessarily imply a cause–effect relationship, especially given that studies have shown that a cough itself can induce GERD. Studies using automatic cough detection to count cough events have shown that GERD certainly preceded a cough in 48% of patients, but in 56% of cases, it was the cough that came before the GERD. What’s more, both mechanisms were present in one third of patients.
 

Prescribing PPIs Effectively

PPIs are commonly prescribed as a test treatment. However, their efficacy is in no way proof of the existence of underlying GERD. In reality, all placebo-controlled studies have shown that in cases where no prior diagnosis of GERD has been made, PPIs have no superior efficacy.

If reflux has been proven, then the improvement provided by PPIs, compared with placebo, is between 12% and 35%. Therefore, it is essential that the presence of GERD be demonstrated, particularly if the patient has no characteristic symptoms of GERD, such as heartburn and acid reflux.

Response factors to PPIs were evaluated in 178 Italian patients with a chronic cough who presented with suspected GERD. Of those, 45% responded to treatment. It has been shown that typical symptoms, severe esophagitis (grade C/D), abnormal acid exposure, and low levels of nocturnal baseline impedance were independent factors of response to treatment.

In conclusion, patients with a chronic cough must be comprehensively tested for GERD before a long-term prescription of PPIs can be considered.
 

Cough Reflex Threshold

Various studies have also revealed that patients with GERD and presenting with a chronic cough have an increased sensitivity to the cough reflex. This hypersensitivity to the cough reflex has inspired several trials involving gabapentin and baclofen. A randomized controlled trial found the two treatments to be equally effective, achieving improvement of around 50%.

Lesogaberan, a new GABA(B) receptor agonist acting on the peripheral nervous system which is better tolerated than baclofen, a drug belonging to the same therapeutic class, showed a 26% benefit over placebo, but it was not statistically significant; lesogaberan has not been developed further.

Anti-reflux surgery is an option. A 2021 meta-analysis revealed that 84% of patients enrolled in these studies saw an improvement in their symptoms. However, these results must be regarded with caution because none of these studies were controlled, most of them were retrospective with very heterogeneous patient populations, and the data obtained on postoperative reflux control were often found to be lacking.

A retrospective study showed that among the factors for nonresponse or recurrence of symptoms after anti-reflux surgery, lack of response to medical treatment and extraesophageal symptoms such as a cough were significant factors. Consequently, potential candidates for surgery must be rigorously screened before being considered for such a procedure.

The recent recommendations for good practice published by the American Gastroenterological Association also insist that lack of response to medical treatment is a major factor for failure of surgical treatment.

In sum, patients with a chronic cough can be prescribed PPIs as first-line treatment if they have typical symptoms of GERD. In the event of treatment failure or isolated cough without typical symptoms, tests to confirm or rule out GERD are essential (such as endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, or impedance-pH monitoring).
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

No one planning holiday gatherings or travel wants to hear this, but the rise of a new COVID-19 variant, JN.1, is concerning experts, who say it may threaten those good times. 

The good news is recent research suggests the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine appears to work against this newest variant. But so few people have gotten the latest vaccine — less than 16% of U.S. adults — that some experts suggest it’s time for the CDC to urge the public who haven’t it to do so now, so the antibodies can kick in before the festivities.

“A significant wave [of JN.1] has started here and could be blunted with a high booster rate and mitigation measures,” said Eric Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, CA, and editor-in-chief of Medscape, a sister site of this news organization.

COVID metrics, meanwhile, have started to climb again. Nearly 10,000 people were hospitalized for COVID in the U.S. for the week ending Nov. 25, the CDC said, a 10% increase over the previous week. 
 

Who’s Who in the Family Tree

JN.1, an Omicron subvariant, was first detected in the U.S. in September and is termed “a notable descendent lineage” of Omicron subvariant BA.2.86 by the World Health Organization. When BA.2.86, also known as Pirola, was first identified in August, it appeared very different from other variants, the CDC said. That triggered concerns it might be more infectious than previous ones, even for people with immunity from vaccination and previous infections. 

“JN.1 is Pirola’s kid,” said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology at Arkansas State University, who maintains a COVID-19 variant database. The variant BA.2.86 and offspring are worrisome due to the mutations, he said.
 

How Widespread Is JN.1?

As of Nov. 27, the CDC says, BA.2.86 is projected to comprise 5%-15% of circulating variants in the U.S. “The expected public health risk of this variant, including its offshoot JN.1, is low,” the agency said.

Currently, JN.1 is reported more often in Europe, Dr. Rajnarayanan said, but some countries have better reporting data than others. “It has probably spread to every country tracking COVID,’’ he said, due to the mutations in the spike protein that make it easier for it to bind and infect.

Wastewater data suggest the variant’s rise is helping to fuel a wave, Dr. Topol said. 
 

Vaccine Effectiveness Against JN.1, Other New Variants 

The new XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine, protects against XBB.1.5, another Omicron subvariant, but also JN.1 and other “emergent” viruses, a team of researchers reported Nov. 26 in a study on bioRxiv that has not yet been certified by peer review.

The updated vaccine, when given to uninfected people, boosted antibodies about 27-fold against XBB.1.5 and about 13- to 27-fold against JN.1 and other emergent viruses, the researchers reported.

While even primary doses of the COVID vaccine will likely help protect against the new JN.1 subvariant, “if you got the XBB.1.5 booster, it is going to be protecting you better against this new variant,” Dr. Rajnarayanan said.
 

2023-2024 Vaccine Uptake Low 

In November, the CDC posted the first detailed estimates of who did. As of Nov. 18, less than 16% of U.S. adults had, with nearly 15% saying they planned to get it.

Coverage among children is lower, with just 6.3% of children up to date on the newest vaccine and 19% of parents saying they planned to get the 2023-2024 vaccine for their children.
 

Predictions, Mitigation

While some experts say a peak due to JN.1 is expected in the weeks ahead, Dr. Topol said it’s impossible to predict exactly how JN.1 will play out.

“It’s not going to be a repeat of November 2021,” when Omicron surfaced, Dr. Rajnarayanan predicted. Within 4 weeks of the World Health Organization declaring Omicron as a virus of concern, it spread around the world.

Mitigation measures can help, Dr. Rajnarayanan said. He suggested:

Get the new vaccine, and especially encourage vulnerable family and friends to do so.

If you are gathering inside for holiday festivities, improve circulation in the house, if possible.

Wear masks in airports and on planes and other public transportation.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

No one planning holiday gatherings or travel wants to hear this, but the rise of a new COVID-19 variant, JN.1, is concerning experts, who say it may threaten those good times. 

The good news is recent research suggests the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine appears to work against this newest variant. But so few people have gotten the latest vaccine — less than 16% of U.S. adults — that some experts suggest it’s time for the CDC to urge the public who haven’t it to do so now, so the antibodies can kick in before the festivities.

“A significant wave [of JN.1] has started here and could be blunted with a high booster rate and mitigation measures,” said Eric Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, CA, and editor-in-chief of Medscape, a sister site of this news organization.

COVID metrics, meanwhile, have started to climb again. Nearly 10,000 people were hospitalized for COVID in the U.S. for the week ending Nov. 25, the CDC said, a 10% increase over the previous week. 
 

Who’s Who in the Family Tree

JN.1, an Omicron subvariant, was first detected in the U.S. in September and is termed “a notable descendent lineage” of Omicron subvariant BA.2.86 by the World Health Organization. When BA.2.86, also known as Pirola, was first identified in August, it appeared very different from other variants, the CDC said. That triggered concerns it might be more infectious than previous ones, even for people with immunity from vaccination and previous infections. 

“JN.1 is Pirola’s kid,” said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology at Arkansas State University, who maintains a COVID-19 variant database. The variant BA.2.86 and offspring are worrisome due to the mutations, he said.
 

How Widespread Is JN.1?

As of Nov. 27, the CDC says, BA.2.86 is projected to comprise 5%-15% of circulating variants in the U.S. “The expected public health risk of this variant, including its offshoot JN.1, is low,” the agency said.

Currently, JN.1 is reported more often in Europe, Dr. Rajnarayanan said, but some countries have better reporting data than others. “It has probably spread to every country tracking COVID,’’ he said, due to the mutations in the spike protein that make it easier for it to bind and infect.

Wastewater data suggest the variant’s rise is helping to fuel a wave, Dr. Topol said. 
 

Vaccine Effectiveness Against JN.1, Other New Variants 

The new XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine, protects against XBB.1.5, another Omicron subvariant, but also JN.1 and other “emergent” viruses, a team of researchers reported Nov. 26 in a study on bioRxiv that has not yet been certified by peer review.

The updated vaccine, when given to uninfected people, boosted antibodies about 27-fold against XBB.1.5 and about 13- to 27-fold against JN.1 and other emergent viruses, the researchers reported.

While even primary doses of the COVID vaccine will likely help protect against the new JN.1 subvariant, “if you got the XBB.1.5 booster, it is going to be protecting you better against this new variant,” Dr. Rajnarayanan said.
 

2023-2024 Vaccine Uptake Low 

In November, the CDC posted the first detailed estimates of who did. As of Nov. 18, less than 16% of U.S. adults had, with nearly 15% saying they planned to get it.

Coverage among children is lower, with just 6.3% of children up to date on the newest vaccine and 19% of parents saying they planned to get the 2023-2024 vaccine for their children.
 

Predictions, Mitigation

While some experts say a peak due to JN.1 is expected in the weeks ahead, Dr. Topol said it’s impossible to predict exactly how JN.1 will play out.

“It’s not going to be a repeat of November 2021,” when Omicron surfaced, Dr. Rajnarayanan predicted. Within 4 weeks of the World Health Organization declaring Omicron as a virus of concern, it spread around the world.

Mitigation measures can help, Dr. Rajnarayanan said. He suggested:

Get the new vaccine, and especially encourage vulnerable family and friends to do so.

If you are gathering inside for holiday festivities, improve circulation in the house, if possible.

Wear masks in airports and on planes and other public transportation.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

No one planning holiday gatherings or travel wants to hear this, but the rise of a new COVID-19 variant, JN.1, is concerning experts, who say it may threaten those good times. 

The good news is recent research suggests the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine appears to work against this newest variant. But so few people have gotten the latest vaccine — less than 16% of U.S. adults — that some experts suggest it’s time for the CDC to urge the public who haven’t it to do so now, so the antibodies can kick in before the festivities.

“A significant wave [of JN.1] has started here and could be blunted with a high booster rate and mitigation measures,” said Eric Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, CA, and editor-in-chief of Medscape, a sister site of this news organization.

COVID metrics, meanwhile, have started to climb again. Nearly 10,000 people were hospitalized for COVID in the U.S. for the week ending Nov. 25, the CDC said, a 10% increase over the previous week. 
 

Who’s Who in the Family Tree

JN.1, an Omicron subvariant, was first detected in the U.S. in September and is termed “a notable descendent lineage” of Omicron subvariant BA.2.86 by the World Health Organization. When BA.2.86, also known as Pirola, was first identified in August, it appeared very different from other variants, the CDC said. That triggered concerns it might be more infectious than previous ones, even for people with immunity from vaccination and previous infections. 

“JN.1 is Pirola’s kid,” said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology at Arkansas State University, who maintains a COVID-19 variant database. The variant BA.2.86 and offspring are worrisome due to the mutations, he said.
 

How Widespread Is JN.1?

As of Nov. 27, the CDC says, BA.2.86 is projected to comprise 5%-15% of circulating variants in the U.S. “The expected public health risk of this variant, including its offshoot JN.1, is low,” the agency said.

Currently, JN.1 is reported more often in Europe, Dr. Rajnarayanan said, but some countries have better reporting data than others. “It has probably spread to every country tracking COVID,’’ he said, due to the mutations in the spike protein that make it easier for it to bind and infect.

Wastewater data suggest the variant’s rise is helping to fuel a wave, Dr. Topol said. 
 

Vaccine Effectiveness Against JN.1, Other New Variants 

The new XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine, protects against XBB.1.5, another Omicron subvariant, but also JN.1 and other “emergent” viruses, a team of researchers reported Nov. 26 in a study on bioRxiv that has not yet been certified by peer review.

The updated vaccine, when given to uninfected people, boosted antibodies about 27-fold against XBB.1.5 and about 13- to 27-fold against JN.1 and other emergent viruses, the researchers reported.

While even primary doses of the COVID vaccine will likely help protect against the new JN.1 subvariant, “if you got the XBB.1.5 booster, it is going to be protecting you better against this new variant,” Dr. Rajnarayanan said.
 

2023-2024 Vaccine Uptake Low 

In November, the CDC posted the first detailed estimates of who did. As of Nov. 18, less than 16% of U.S. adults had, with nearly 15% saying they planned to get it.

Coverage among children is lower, with just 6.3% of children up to date on the newest vaccine and 19% of parents saying they planned to get the 2023-2024 vaccine for their children.
 

Predictions, Mitigation

While some experts say a peak due to JN.1 is expected in the weeks ahead, Dr. Topol said it’s impossible to predict exactly how JN.1 will play out.

“It’s not going to be a repeat of November 2021,” when Omicron surfaced, Dr. Rajnarayanan predicted. Within 4 weeks of the World Health Organization declaring Omicron as a virus of concern, it spread around the world.

Mitigation measures can help, Dr. Rajnarayanan said. He suggested:

Get the new vaccine, and especially encourage vulnerable family and friends to do so.

If you are gathering inside for holiday festivities, improve circulation in the house, if possible.

Wear masks in airports and on planes and other public transportation.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.