Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

This supplement to Neurology Reviews compiles MS-related news briefs from the 2020 virtual annual meetings of the American Academy of Neurology and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.  

Click here to read the supplement

This supplement to Neurology Reviews compiles MS-related news briefs from the 2020 virtual annual meetings of the American Academy of Neurology and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.  

Click here to read the supplement

This supplement to Neurology Reviews compiles MS-related news briefs from the 2020 virtual annual meetings of the American Academy of Neurology and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.  

Click here to read the supplement

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.