News From CHEST Physician®

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

daruswajostoclobravo

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

daruswajostoclobravo

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

daruswajostoclobravo

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

biludashiswochenilashuphuthalostituhidonakecuchemislitodrinacisitucracaphimuwriclubesladruletefreniteslevopunatrethewrophoclidisluwrohachepriwrudatroguchalushuraswodestiwraswakafricleswasloslawreswifrinahaswawrigislurushefribaka

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

pijuhubrukos

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

shuwachosicrinacrechathespuslupradrisasubreslo

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

biludashiswochenilashuphuthalostituhidonakecuchemislitodrinacisitucracaphimuwriclubesladruletefreniteslevopunatrethewrophoclidisluwrohachepriwrudatroguchalushuraswodestiwraswakafricleswasloslawreswifrinahaswawrigislurushefribaka

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

pijuhubrukos

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

shuwachosicrinacrechathespuslupradrisasubreslo

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

biludashiswochenilashuphuthalostituhidonakecuchemislitodrinacisitucracaphimuwriclubesladruletefreniteslevopunatrethewrophoclidisluwrohachepriwrudatroguchalushuraswodestiwraswakafricleswasloslawreswifrinahaswawrigislurushefribaka

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

pijuhubrukos

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

shuwachosicrinacrechathespuslupradrisasubreslo

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

Journal CHEST^® | The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients

By: Charles Chin Han Lew, PhD, et al

Current international critical care guidelines based on expert opinion recommend high protein treatment (average 1.6 g/kg/d) for critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition to improve clinical outcomes. This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients across 16 countries. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with the primary outcome of slower time to discharge alive (TTDA) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20).

Most importantly, this study demonstrated an association between malnutrition and slower TTDA; however, this association was not modified by high protein treatment. This research challenges current international critical care nutrition guidelines.

Farmer_MaryJo_web.jpg

By: Kevin P. Seitz, MD, et al

The Mode of Ventilation During Critical Illness (MODE) trial is a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover pilot study conducted in a medical ICU exploring how different mechanical ventilation modes affect ventilator-free days in critically ill patients. This trial aims to determine which ventilation mode maximizes the days patients spend alive without invasive ventilation. By switching between ventilation modes each month, the study ensures a thorough assessment under uniform clinical conditions. The trial’s protocol and statistical analysis plan were defined before the end of enrollment, which bolsters the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of the findings. Initial findings indicate the necessity for an expanded, multicenter trial to definitively identify the optimal ventilation mode, as current data do not universally prefer one method over others. This research has significant implications for clinical practice, potentially altering mechanical ventilation guidelines and improving patient outcomes by reducing the time spent on mechanical ventilation.

Narendra_Dharani_Kumari_web.jpg

Anjum_Humayun2_web.jpg

Journal CHEST^® | The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients

By: Charles Chin Han Lew, PhD, et al

Current international critical care guidelines based on expert opinion recommend high protein treatment (average 1.6 g/kg/d) for critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition to improve clinical outcomes. This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients across 16 countries. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with the primary outcome of slower time to discharge alive (TTDA) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20).

Most importantly, this study demonstrated an association between malnutrition and slower TTDA; however, this association was not modified by high protein treatment. This research challenges current international critical care nutrition guidelines.

Farmer_MaryJo_web.jpg

By: Kevin P. Seitz, MD, et al

The Mode of Ventilation During Critical Illness (MODE) trial is a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover pilot study conducted in a medical ICU exploring how different mechanical ventilation modes affect ventilator-free days in critically ill patients. This trial aims to determine which ventilation mode maximizes the days patients spend alive without invasive ventilation. By switching between ventilation modes each month, the study ensures a thorough assessment under uniform clinical conditions. The trial’s protocol and statistical analysis plan were defined before the end of enrollment, which bolsters the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of the findings. Initial findings indicate the necessity for an expanded, multicenter trial to definitively identify the optimal ventilation mode, as current data do not universally prefer one method over others. This research has significant implications for clinical practice, potentially altering mechanical ventilation guidelines and improving patient outcomes by reducing the time spent on mechanical ventilation.

Narendra_Dharani_Kumari_web.jpg

Anjum_Humayun2_web.jpg

Journal CHEST^® | The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients

By: Charles Chin Han Lew, PhD, et al

Current international critical care guidelines based on expert opinion recommend high protein treatment (average 1.6 g/kg/d) for critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition to improve clinical outcomes. This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients across 16 countries. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with the primary outcome of slower time to discharge alive (TTDA) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20).

Most importantly, this study demonstrated an association between malnutrition and slower TTDA; however, this association was not modified by high protein treatment. This research challenges current international critical care nutrition guidelines.

Farmer_MaryJo_web.jpg

By: Kevin P. Seitz, MD, et al

The Mode of Ventilation During Critical Illness (MODE) trial is a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover pilot study conducted in a medical ICU exploring how different mechanical ventilation modes affect ventilator-free days in critically ill patients. This trial aims to determine which ventilation mode maximizes the days patients spend alive without invasive ventilation. By switching between ventilation modes each month, the study ensures a thorough assessment under uniform clinical conditions. The trial’s protocol and statistical analysis plan were defined before the end of enrollment, which bolsters the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of the findings. Initial findings indicate the necessity for an expanded, multicenter trial to definitively identify the optimal ventilation mode, as current data do not universally prefer one method over others. This research has significant implications for clinical practice, potentially altering mechanical ventilation guidelines and improving patient outcomes by reducing the time spent on mechanical ventilation.

Narendra_Dharani_Kumari_web.jpg

Anjum_Humayun2_web.jpg

As we enter summer, it’s hard to believe that we’re halfway through my presidency. Registration for CHEST 2024 (October 6 to 9) is now open, and October will be here before we know it. We’re thrilled to host the CHEST Annual Meeting in Boston for the first time ever and hope to see you there to experience all that the meeting has to offer.

I’m happy to share that we received more than 4,000 abstract and case report submissions from clinicians at all stages of their careers, and, for the first year, we had a dedicated category to solicit submissions from physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs), respiratory therapists, and other members of the broader health care team.

piswodahanefrokephiheclubutrihauiuustuwespephaclospoticrethitremaphitiwacledomuneuavowroprewocicrovusteswaspowo

In both my practice and my time as CHEST President, I’ve been reflecting on the benefits of the multidisciplinary team—especially in the ICU. Because this is a setting that relies heavily on a team aspect, every member of the care team is a great asset.

CHEST is working to ensure that all integral members of our professional health care teams have the resources they need to best serve our patients. We encourage advanced practice providers (APPs) to apply to serve on our committees during the current open call, and we recently launched a dedicated APP Intersection column, called APP Intersection, within this publication to elevate diverse perspectives. I anticipate more is on the horizon.

In my experience, I have seen tremendous success in partnering with and complementing each other, rather than competing for space when caring for a patient. Each and every one of us shares the same goal of providing the best patient care, and we each bring our own strengths.

Our future is ripe with opportunities to better serve the whole care team—MDs, PAs, NPs, and more—and it starts with recognizing the needs of everyone within the organization. To help CHEST better serve our members, I encourage you to take a short survey about your professional hurdles.

And please, do not hesitate to contact me (president@chestnet.org) with suggestions or just to introduce yourself.



All the best,

Jack

As we enter summer, it’s hard to believe that we’re halfway through my presidency. Registration for CHEST 2024 (October 6 to 9) is now open, and October will be here before we know it. We’re thrilled to host the CHEST Annual Meeting in Boston for the first time ever and hope to see you there to experience all that the meeting has to offer.

I’m happy to share that we received more than 4,000 abstract and case report submissions from clinicians at all stages of their careers, and, for the first year, we had a dedicated category to solicit submissions from physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs), respiratory therapists, and other members of the broader health care team.

piswodahanefrokephiheclubutrihauiuustuwespephaclospoticrethitremaphitiwacledomuneuavowroprewocicrovusteswaspowo

In both my practice and my time as CHEST President, I’ve been reflecting on the benefits of the multidisciplinary team—especially in the ICU. Because this is a setting that relies heavily on a team aspect, every member of the care team is a great asset.

CHEST is working to ensure that all integral members of our professional health care teams have the resources they need to best serve our patients. We encourage advanced practice providers (APPs) to apply to serve on our committees during the current open call, and we recently launched a dedicated APP Intersection column, called APP Intersection, within this publication to elevate diverse perspectives. I anticipate more is on the horizon.

In my experience, I have seen tremendous success in partnering with and complementing each other, rather than competing for space when caring for a patient. Each and every one of us shares the same goal of providing the best patient care, and we each bring our own strengths.

Our future is ripe with opportunities to better serve the whole care team—MDs, PAs, NPs, and more—and it starts with recognizing the needs of everyone within the organization. To help CHEST better serve our members, I encourage you to take a short survey about your professional hurdles.

And please, do not hesitate to contact me (president@chestnet.org) with suggestions or just to introduce yourself.



All the best,

Jack

As we enter summer, it’s hard to believe that we’re halfway through my presidency. Registration for CHEST 2024 (October 6 to 9) is now open, and October will be here before we know it. We’re thrilled to host the CHEST Annual Meeting in Boston for the first time ever and hope to see you there to experience all that the meeting has to offer.

I’m happy to share that we received more than 4,000 abstract and case report submissions from clinicians at all stages of their careers, and, for the first year, we had a dedicated category to solicit submissions from physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs), respiratory therapists, and other members of the broader health care team.

piswodahanefrokephiheclubutrihauiuustuwespephaclospoticrethitremaphitiwacledomuneuavowroprewocicrovusteswaspowo

In both my practice and my time as CHEST President, I’ve been reflecting on the benefits of the multidisciplinary team—especially in the ICU. Because this is a setting that relies heavily on a team aspect, every member of the care team is a great asset.

CHEST is working to ensure that all integral members of our professional health care teams have the resources they need to best serve our patients. We encourage advanced practice providers (APPs) to apply to serve on our committees during the current open call, and we recently launched a dedicated APP Intersection column, called APP Intersection, within this publication to elevate diverse perspectives. I anticipate more is on the horizon.

In my experience, I have seen tremendous success in partnering with and complementing each other, rather than competing for space when caring for a patient. Each and every one of us shares the same goal of providing the best patient care, and we each bring our own strengths.

Our future is ripe with opportunities to better serve the whole care team—MDs, PAs, NPs, and more—and it starts with recognizing the needs of everyone within the organization. To help CHEST better serve our members, I encourage you to take a short survey about your professional hurdles.

And please, do not hesitate to contact me (president@chestnet.org) with suggestions or just to introduce yourself.



All the best,

Jack

ceshiritrogeuecroprashawrastislosositrepravicratawrawririchuhiuocahiwisluchinilubrumiswiclistutregikithikocimestutrajechutojakotrinapetruhokoslibikeueshicagachacibihacracranauipruhihithinuhujuvuruuebreprespuspuranodumibuk

For Erika Mosesón, MD, a pulmonologist and ICU doctor, advocacy for clean air and climate action started small: signing petitions and writing letters.

Even as she attended conferences and learned about the health impacts of air pollution, her impression was that experts were handling it. “I didn’t really think my voice was worth highlighting,” Dr. Mosesón said.

But her concerns grew with the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in 2019 and rolled-back federal protections around particulate matter and other environmental guidelines.

In response, Dr. Mosesón moved from writing letters to educating people in her home state of Oregon on the lung-related effects of pollution. She spoke at organization meetings and town halls and met with legislators. One way or another, she knew she needed to get the word out.

After all, problem-causing particulates are teeny-tiny; too small to be seen. “It’s literally invisible,” Dr. Mosesón said. But the impact on patients is not.

That’s how the Air Health Our Health podcast was born.

The podcast has a straightforward tagline — ”Clean air saves lives” — and a blunt recommendation: “If you do nothing else, don’t light things on fire and breathe them into your lungs.”
 

Giving a voice to the voiceless

In early 2017, the Oregon legislature was considering bills aimed at transitioning from diesel-fueled engines to cleaner alternatives. At the time, Dr. Mosesón was on the executive committee for the Oregon Thoracic Society, and, in partnership with the American Lung Association, she was tapped to speak to legislators about clean air and the health impacts of air pollution.

This role made it clear to her that lawmakers don’t hear diverse perspectives. A trucking company may budget for full-time lobbyists, whereas parents of kids with asthma aren’t in the room.

So there’s an asymmetry to who is and is not heard from, Dr. Mosesón said. That’s why in her conversations and presentations, she advocates for those who might not otherwise be represented in the rooms where big decisions are made.
 

Automating advocacy

Over time, Dr. Mosesón found her schedule was filling up with meetings and presentations.

“I’m a full-time clinician,” Dr. Mosesón noted. She’s also a parent to three kids. When she was asked to attend a hearing, sometimes her schedule required her to decline. And so, early in the pandemic, the Air Health Our Health podcast and the accompanying website were born.

“The podcast and website were honestly a way to automate advocacy,” Dr. Mosesón said.

In many ways, the pandemic was an ideal time to launch the podcast. For one thing, the idea of podcasting from your closet or living room (as opposed to a professional audio studio) became commonplace. Plus, for a pulmonologist, these years were full of relevant topics like how climate change and particulate matter interacted with COVID-19 , Dr. Mosesón noted.

Then, in 2020, the Labor Day fires led to Oregon’s having the worst air quality in the world. That same year, there were George Floyd protests around the country, including in Portland, which led to rampant use of tear gas and prompted Dr. Mosesón to dig into studies about these chemicals.

Given just how much air pollution affects health — and the continued extreme weather events (such as Oregon’s heat dome in summer 2021) — there was no shortage of topics for the podcast.
 

Next steps to empower physicians

Confronting climate change is daunting, and it is made more challenging by a partisan environment, distrust of experts, and disinformation. On her podcast, Dr. Mosesón aims to make it easier.

In each episode, she shares information and interviews experts. She shares how a patient might be affected by particular issues — radon, wildfires, and so on. The goal is to provide clinicians with a foundation on everyday issues.

“Every single doctor feels like they can talk to a patient about smoking, even if they don’t know all the deep nitty-gritty studies about it,” Dr. Mosesón said. The exact effects of smoking — cancer, heart disease, and lung disease — occur due to air pollution. “When I give talks, I tell people, if you can talk about smoking, you can talk about air pollution.”

Each podcast also features an array of action items.

Some steps are practical, such as creating a plan for heat events or encouraging radon testing. The solution could also be as simple as asking the right questions.

For example, at a doctor’s visit for asthma, common recommendations are to use a HEPA filter or place a sheet protector on the bed, Dr. Mosesón said. It won’t typically come up that a patient’s asthma may be caused or exacerbated by living beside a highway.

Dr. Mosesón also encourages advocacy. “There are all these different levels [of response],” she said. Next steps might involve writing a letter, contacting a councilperson, or advocating for a program (like retiring gas-powered leaf blowers).

For many patients, their doctor is the only person they routinely interact with who has advanced scientific training. Rather than presenting dry data, Dr. Mosesón recommends framing changes and recommendations in ways that are meaningful to neighbors.

“Each physician or clinician is going to know the values of their community,” Dr. Mosesón said. If you’re in a military town, advocating for electric cars may be easier if framed around decreasing dependence on foreign oil. If the region recently experienced back-to-back heat events, advocating for a cooling center might be galvanizing.

What is Dr. Mosesón’s ultimate goal? Inform others so well that she can retire her podcasting equipment.

“I would love,” Dr. Mosesón said, “for every physician in their local community to be a clean air and climate advocate.”



------

Be sure to check out a special episode of the Air Health Our Health podcast, where Dr. Mosesón and CHEST Advocates Editor in Chief, Drew Harris, MD, FCCP, discuss the serious health issues impacting coal miners. They take a deep dive into black lung disease and silica dust, highlighting the science and research, prevention efforts and challenges to implementation, and the importance of advocacy work.


LISTEN NOW »


This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

ceshiritrogeuecroprashawrastislosositrepravicratawrawririchuhiuocahiwisluchinilubrumiswiclistutregikithikocimestutrajechutojakotrinapetruhokoslibikeueshicagachacibihacracranauipruhihithinuhujuvuruuebreprespuspuranodumibuk

For Erika Mosesón, MD, a pulmonologist and ICU doctor, advocacy for clean air and climate action started small: signing petitions and writing letters.

Even as she attended conferences and learned about the health impacts of air pollution, her impression was that experts were handling it. “I didn’t really think my voice was worth highlighting,” Dr. Mosesón said.

But her concerns grew with the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in 2019 and rolled-back federal protections around particulate matter and other environmental guidelines.

In response, Dr. Mosesón moved from writing letters to educating people in her home state of Oregon on the lung-related effects of pollution. She spoke at organization meetings and town halls and met with legislators. One way or another, she knew she needed to get the word out.

After all, problem-causing particulates are teeny-tiny; too small to be seen. “It’s literally invisible,” Dr. Mosesón said. But the impact on patients is not.

That’s how the Air Health Our Health podcast was born.

The podcast has a straightforward tagline — ”Clean air saves lives” — and a blunt recommendation: “If you do nothing else, don’t light things on fire and breathe them into your lungs.”
 

Giving a voice to the voiceless

In early 2017, the Oregon legislature was considering bills aimed at transitioning from diesel-fueled engines to cleaner alternatives. At the time, Dr. Mosesón was on the executive committee for the Oregon Thoracic Society, and, in partnership with the American Lung Association, she was tapped to speak to legislators about clean air and the health impacts of air pollution.

This role made it clear to her that lawmakers don’t hear diverse perspectives. A trucking company may budget for full-time lobbyists, whereas parents of kids with asthma aren’t in the room.

So there’s an asymmetry to who is and is not heard from, Dr. Mosesón said. That’s why in her conversations and presentations, she advocates for those who might not otherwise be represented in the rooms where big decisions are made.
 

Automating advocacy

Over time, Dr. Mosesón found her schedule was filling up with meetings and presentations.

“I’m a full-time clinician,” Dr. Mosesón noted. She’s also a parent to three kids. When she was asked to attend a hearing, sometimes her schedule required her to decline. And so, early in the pandemic, the Air Health Our Health podcast and the accompanying website were born.

“The podcast and website were honestly a way to automate advocacy,” Dr. Mosesón said.

In many ways, the pandemic was an ideal time to launch the podcast. For one thing, the idea of podcasting from your closet or living room (as opposed to a professional audio studio) became commonplace. Plus, for a pulmonologist, these years were full of relevant topics like how climate change and particulate matter interacted with COVID-19 , Dr. Mosesón noted.

Then, in 2020, the Labor Day fires led to Oregon’s having the worst air quality in the world. That same year, there were George Floyd protests around the country, including in Portland, which led to rampant use of tear gas and prompted Dr. Mosesón to dig into studies about these chemicals.

Given just how much air pollution affects health — and the continued extreme weather events (such as Oregon’s heat dome in summer 2021) — there was no shortage of topics for the podcast.
 

Next steps to empower physicians

Confronting climate change is daunting, and it is made more challenging by a partisan environment, distrust of experts, and disinformation. On her podcast, Dr. Mosesón aims to make it easier.

In each episode, she shares information and interviews experts. She shares how a patient might be affected by particular issues — radon, wildfires, and so on. The goal is to provide clinicians with a foundation on everyday issues.

“Every single doctor feels like they can talk to a patient about smoking, even if they don’t know all the deep nitty-gritty studies about it,” Dr. Mosesón said. The exact effects of smoking — cancer, heart disease, and lung disease — occur due to air pollution. “When I give talks, I tell people, if you can talk about smoking, you can talk about air pollution.”

Each podcast also features an array of action items.

Some steps are practical, such as creating a plan for heat events or encouraging radon testing. The solution could also be as simple as asking the right questions.

For example, at a doctor’s visit for asthma, common recommendations are to use a HEPA filter or place a sheet protector on the bed, Dr. Mosesón said. It won’t typically come up that a patient’s asthma may be caused or exacerbated by living beside a highway.

Dr. Mosesón also encourages advocacy. “There are all these different levels [of response],” she said. Next steps might involve writing a letter, contacting a councilperson, or advocating for a program (like retiring gas-powered leaf blowers).

For many patients, their doctor is the only person they routinely interact with who has advanced scientific training. Rather than presenting dry data, Dr. Mosesón recommends framing changes and recommendations in ways that are meaningful to neighbors.

“Each physician or clinician is going to know the values of their community,” Dr. Mosesón said. If you’re in a military town, advocating for electric cars may be easier if framed around decreasing dependence on foreign oil. If the region recently experienced back-to-back heat events, advocating for a cooling center might be galvanizing.

What is Dr. Mosesón’s ultimate goal? Inform others so well that she can retire her podcasting equipment.

“I would love,” Dr. Mosesón said, “for every physician in their local community to be a clean air and climate advocate.”



------

Be sure to check out a special episode of the Air Health Our Health podcast, where Dr. Mosesón and CHEST Advocates Editor in Chief, Drew Harris, MD, FCCP, discuss the serious health issues impacting coal miners. They take a deep dive into black lung disease and silica dust, highlighting the science and research, prevention efforts and challenges to implementation, and the importance of advocacy work.


LISTEN NOW »


This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

ceshiritrogeuecroprashawrastislosositrepravicratawrawririchuhiuocahiwisluchinilubrumiswiclistutregikithikocimestutrajechutojakotrinapetruhokoslibikeueshicagachacibihacracranauipruhihithinuhujuvuruuebreprespuspuranodumibuk

For Erika Mosesón, MD, a pulmonologist and ICU doctor, advocacy for clean air and climate action started small: signing petitions and writing letters.

Even as she attended conferences and learned about the health impacts of air pollution, her impression was that experts were handling it. “I didn’t really think my voice was worth highlighting,” Dr. Mosesón said.

But her concerns grew with the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in 2019 and rolled-back federal protections around particulate matter and other environmental guidelines.

In response, Dr. Mosesón moved from writing letters to educating people in her home state of Oregon on the lung-related effects of pollution. She spoke at organization meetings and town halls and met with legislators. One way or another, she knew she needed to get the word out.

After all, problem-causing particulates are teeny-tiny; too small to be seen. “It’s literally invisible,” Dr. Mosesón said. But the impact on patients is not.

That’s how the Air Health Our Health podcast was born.

The podcast has a straightforward tagline — ”Clean air saves lives” — and a blunt recommendation: “If you do nothing else, don’t light things on fire and breathe them into your lungs.”
 

Giving a voice to the voiceless

In early 2017, the Oregon legislature was considering bills aimed at transitioning from diesel-fueled engines to cleaner alternatives. At the time, Dr. Mosesón was on the executive committee for the Oregon Thoracic Society, and, in partnership with the American Lung Association, she was tapped to speak to legislators about clean air and the health impacts of air pollution.

This role made it clear to her that lawmakers don’t hear diverse perspectives. A trucking company may budget for full-time lobbyists, whereas parents of kids with asthma aren’t in the room.

So there’s an asymmetry to who is and is not heard from, Dr. Mosesón said. That’s why in her conversations and presentations, she advocates for those who might not otherwise be represented in the rooms where big decisions are made.
 

Automating advocacy

Over time, Dr. Mosesón found her schedule was filling up with meetings and presentations.

“I’m a full-time clinician,” Dr. Mosesón noted. She’s also a parent to three kids. When she was asked to attend a hearing, sometimes her schedule required her to decline. And so, early in the pandemic, the Air Health Our Health podcast and the accompanying website were born.

“The podcast and website were honestly a way to automate advocacy,” Dr. Mosesón said.

In many ways, the pandemic was an ideal time to launch the podcast. For one thing, the idea of podcasting from your closet or living room (as opposed to a professional audio studio) became commonplace. Plus, for a pulmonologist, these years were full of relevant topics like how climate change and particulate matter interacted with COVID-19 , Dr. Mosesón noted.

Then, in 2020, the Labor Day fires led to Oregon’s having the worst air quality in the world. That same year, there were George Floyd protests around the country, including in Portland, which led to rampant use of tear gas and prompted Dr. Mosesón to dig into studies about these chemicals.

Given just how much air pollution affects health — and the continued extreme weather events (such as Oregon’s heat dome in summer 2021) — there was no shortage of topics for the podcast.
 

Next steps to empower physicians

Confronting climate change is daunting, and it is made more challenging by a partisan environment, distrust of experts, and disinformation. On her podcast, Dr. Mosesón aims to make it easier.

In each episode, she shares information and interviews experts. She shares how a patient might be affected by particular issues — radon, wildfires, and so on. The goal is to provide clinicians with a foundation on everyday issues.

“Every single doctor feels like they can talk to a patient about smoking, even if they don’t know all the deep nitty-gritty studies about it,” Dr. Mosesón said. The exact effects of smoking — cancer, heart disease, and lung disease — occur due to air pollution. “When I give talks, I tell people, if you can talk about smoking, you can talk about air pollution.”

Each podcast also features an array of action items.

Some steps are practical, such as creating a plan for heat events or encouraging radon testing. The solution could also be as simple as asking the right questions.

For example, at a doctor’s visit for asthma, common recommendations are to use a HEPA filter or place a sheet protector on the bed, Dr. Mosesón said. It won’t typically come up that a patient’s asthma may be caused or exacerbated by living beside a highway.

Dr. Mosesón also encourages advocacy. “There are all these different levels [of response],” she said. Next steps might involve writing a letter, contacting a councilperson, or advocating for a program (like retiring gas-powered leaf blowers).

For many patients, their doctor is the only person they routinely interact with who has advanced scientific training. Rather than presenting dry data, Dr. Mosesón recommends framing changes and recommendations in ways that are meaningful to neighbors.

“Each physician or clinician is going to know the values of their community,” Dr. Mosesón said. If you’re in a military town, advocating for electric cars may be easier if framed around decreasing dependence on foreign oil. If the region recently experienced back-to-back heat events, advocating for a cooling center might be galvanizing.

What is Dr. Mosesón’s ultimate goal? Inform others so well that she can retire her podcasting equipment.

“I would love,” Dr. Mosesón said, “for every physician in their local community to be a clean air and climate advocate.”



------

Be sure to check out a special episode of the Air Health Our Health podcast, where Dr. Mosesón and CHEST Advocates Editor in Chief, Drew Harris, MD, FCCP, discuss the serious health issues impacting coal miners. They take a deep dive into black lung disease and silica dust, highlighting the science and research, prevention efforts and challenges to implementation, and the importance of advocacy work.


LISTEN NOW »


This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Editor’s note: On March 29, 2024, the authors of the study, “Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in  JAMA Internal Medicine, issued a formal retraction of their article. The CHEST Physician^®  Editorial Board apologizes for any confusion this may have caused.
 

spofraslocrajiteslephunathopechibrachiwrosluphonarespatruvebro

An article in the April issue of the CHEST Physician publication headlined, “E-cigarettes beat nicotine gum for smoking cessation,” was based on an article in JAMA Internal Medicine by Liu Z and colleagues which was subsequently retracted by the author due to coding errors and discrepancies in calculations that cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the reported findings.

One should be cautious in evaluating claims of the benefits of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). e-Cigarettes are a highly addictive and largely unregulated product. The fine print in previous clinical trials of e-cigarettes shows greater rates of stopping nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—in the groups assigned to recommendation for nicotine replacement therapy. e-Cigarettes have substantial acute and chronic harms.

Although much of the research to date is from animal models, there is a growing body of evidence in humans that validates the findings from the animal models. In laboratory animal models, e-cigarettes impair airway defenses, contribute to epithelial dysfunction, lead to apoptosis of airway cells, cause emphysematous changes, and lead to increased cancer rates.

Adverse effects on cardiovascular health have also been demonstrated. There is evidence of genotoxicity from e-cigarette exposure, with increased rates of DNA damage and decreased rates of DNA repair. Carcinogenic substances are present in e-cigarettes, and we may not see the carcinogenic effects in humans for several years or even decades. Commonly used flavoring chemicals have substantial pulmonary toxicity. There is evidence that the dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco can be more harmful than the use of combustible tobacco alone, as the person who smokes is now exposed to additional toxins unique to the e-cigarette.

E-cigarettes can cause severe acute lung disease; 14% of the severe e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases reported use of only nicotine-containing e-cigarette products. There are reports of people who used e-cigarettes who required lung transplant due to complications of their e-cigarette use.

The tobacco industry has a long history of “harm reduction” products that were anything but—from filter cigarettes (the “advanced” Kent Micronite filter contained asbestos) to the so-called low tar and nicotine cigarettes (which were no less harmful). There is a long history of physicians endorsing these products as “must be better.” The growing evidence that e-cigarettes carry distinct health risks of their own should prompt us to consider a broader picture beyond just comparing them with traditional cigarettes to assess their impact on health.

Physicians treating tobacco dependence should recommend US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for pharmacotherapy. These have a robust evidence base documenting that they help people who smoke to break free of nicotine addiction. The goal of tobacco dependence treatment should be stopping ALL harmful tobacco/nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—not simply changing from one harmful product to another.
 

References

Liu Z. Notice of retraction: Lin HX et al. Efficacy of electronic cigarettes vs varenicline and nicotine chewing gum as an aid to stop smoking: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(3):291-299. JAMA Intern Med. Preprint. Posted online March 29, 2024. PMID: 38551593. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1125

Farber HJ, Conrado Pacheco Gallego M, Galiatsatos P, Folan P, Lamphere T, Pakhale S. Harms of electronic cigarettes: what the healthcare provider needs to know. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(4):567-572. PMID: 33284731. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1113CME

Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press; 2011.

Auer R, Schoeni A, Humair JP, et al. Electronic nicotine-delivery systems for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(7):601-610. PMID: 38354139. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2308815

Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):629-637. Preprint. Posted online January 30, 2019. PMID: 30699054. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

Editor’s note: On March 29, 2024, the authors of the study, “Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in  JAMA Internal Medicine, issued a formal retraction of their article. The CHEST Physician^®  Editorial Board apologizes for any confusion this may have caused.
 

spofraslocrajiteslephunathopechibrachiwrosluphonarespatruvebro

An article in the April issue of the CHEST Physician publication headlined, “E-cigarettes beat nicotine gum for smoking cessation,” was based on an article in JAMA Internal Medicine by Liu Z and colleagues which was subsequently retracted by the author due to coding errors and discrepancies in calculations that cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the reported findings.

One should be cautious in evaluating claims of the benefits of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). e-Cigarettes are a highly addictive and largely unregulated product. The fine print in previous clinical trials of e-cigarettes shows greater rates of stopping nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—in the groups assigned to recommendation for nicotine replacement therapy. e-Cigarettes have substantial acute and chronic harms.

Although much of the research to date is from animal models, there is a growing body of evidence in humans that validates the findings from the animal models. In laboratory animal models, e-cigarettes impair airway defenses, contribute to epithelial dysfunction, lead to apoptosis of airway cells, cause emphysematous changes, and lead to increased cancer rates.

Adverse effects on cardiovascular health have also been demonstrated. There is evidence of genotoxicity from e-cigarette exposure, with increased rates of DNA damage and decreased rates of DNA repair. Carcinogenic substances are present in e-cigarettes, and we may not see the carcinogenic effects in humans for several years or even decades. Commonly used flavoring chemicals have substantial pulmonary toxicity. There is evidence that the dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco can be more harmful than the use of combustible tobacco alone, as the person who smokes is now exposed to additional toxins unique to the e-cigarette.

E-cigarettes can cause severe acute lung disease; 14% of the severe e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases reported use of only nicotine-containing e-cigarette products. There are reports of people who used e-cigarettes who required lung transplant due to complications of their e-cigarette use.

The tobacco industry has a long history of “harm reduction” products that were anything but—from filter cigarettes (the “advanced” Kent Micronite filter contained asbestos) to the so-called low tar and nicotine cigarettes (which were no less harmful). There is a long history of physicians endorsing these products as “must be better.” The growing evidence that e-cigarettes carry distinct health risks of their own should prompt us to consider a broader picture beyond just comparing them with traditional cigarettes to assess their impact on health.

Physicians treating tobacco dependence should recommend US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for pharmacotherapy. These have a robust evidence base documenting that they help people who smoke to break free of nicotine addiction. The goal of tobacco dependence treatment should be stopping ALL harmful tobacco/nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—not simply changing from one harmful product to another.
 

References

Liu Z. Notice of retraction: Lin HX et al. Efficacy of electronic cigarettes vs varenicline and nicotine chewing gum as an aid to stop smoking: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(3):291-299. JAMA Intern Med. Preprint. Posted online March 29, 2024. PMID: 38551593. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1125

Farber HJ, Conrado Pacheco Gallego M, Galiatsatos P, Folan P, Lamphere T, Pakhale S. Harms of electronic cigarettes: what the healthcare provider needs to know. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(4):567-572. PMID: 33284731. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1113CME

Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press; 2011.

Auer R, Schoeni A, Humair JP, et al. Electronic nicotine-delivery systems for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(7):601-610. PMID: 38354139. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2308815

Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):629-637. Preprint. Posted online January 30, 2019. PMID: 30699054. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

Editor’s note: On March 29, 2024, the authors of the study, “Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in  JAMA Internal Medicine, issued a formal retraction of their article. The CHEST Physician^®  Editorial Board apologizes for any confusion this may have caused.
 

spofraslocrajiteslephunathopechibrachiwrosluphonarespatruvebro

An article in the April issue of the CHEST Physician publication headlined, “E-cigarettes beat nicotine gum for smoking cessation,” was based on an article in JAMA Internal Medicine by Liu Z and colleagues which was subsequently retracted by the author due to coding errors and discrepancies in calculations that cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the reported findings.

One should be cautious in evaluating claims of the benefits of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). e-Cigarettes are a highly addictive and largely unregulated product. The fine print in previous clinical trials of e-cigarettes shows greater rates of stopping nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—in the groups assigned to recommendation for nicotine replacement therapy. e-Cigarettes have substantial acute and chronic harms.

Although much of the research to date is from animal models, there is a growing body of evidence in humans that validates the findings from the animal models. In laboratory animal models, e-cigarettes impair airway defenses, contribute to epithelial dysfunction, lead to apoptosis of airway cells, cause emphysematous changes, and lead to increased cancer rates.

Adverse effects on cardiovascular health have also been demonstrated. There is evidence of genotoxicity from e-cigarette exposure, with increased rates of DNA damage and decreased rates of DNA repair. Carcinogenic substances are present in e-cigarettes, and we may not see the carcinogenic effects in humans for several years or even decades. Commonly used flavoring chemicals have substantial pulmonary toxicity. There is evidence that the dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco can be more harmful than the use of combustible tobacco alone, as the person who smokes is now exposed to additional toxins unique to the e-cigarette.

E-cigarettes can cause severe acute lung disease; 14% of the severe e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases reported use of only nicotine-containing e-cigarette products. There are reports of people who used e-cigarettes who required lung transplant due to complications of their e-cigarette use.

The tobacco industry has a long history of “harm reduction” products that were anything but—from filter cigarettes (the “advanced” Kent Micronite filter contained asbestos) to the so-called low tar and nicotine cigarettes (which were no less harmful). There is a long history of physicians endorsing these products as “must be better.” The growing evidence that e-cigarettes carry distinct health risks of their own should prompt us to consider a broader picture beyond just comparing them with traditional cigarettes to assess their impact on health.

Physicians treating tobacco dependence should recommend US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for pharmacotherapy. These have a robust evidence base documenting that they help people who smoke to break free of nicotine addiction. The goal of tobacco dependence treatment should be stopping ALL harmful tobacco/nicotine products—including e-cigarettes—not simply changing from one harmful product to another.
 

References

Liu Z. Notice of retraction: Lin HX et al. Efficacy of electronic cigarettes vs varenicline and nicotine chewing gum as an aid to stop smoking: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(3):291-299. JAMA Intern Med. Preprint. Posted online March 29, 2024. PMID: 38551593. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1125

Farber HJ, Conrado Pacheco Gallego M, Galiatsatos P, Folan P, Lamphere T, Pakhale S. Harms of electronic cigarettes: what the healthcare provider needs to know. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(4):567-572. PMID: 33284731. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1113CME

Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press; 2011.

Auer R, Schoeni A, Humair JP, et al. Electronic nicotine-delivery systems for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(7):601-610. PMID: 38354139. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2308815

Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):629-637. Preprint. Posted online January 30, 2019. PMID: 30699054. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

nasustuuaphetipresulobauushetrelijudogucolesteshihofriwrawujehokamadowrocheluphocrifrepromavicuthatemoweswupostovocojosofradrutromivifredosiwrustonojiv

During residency training at the Rush University Medical Center in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Esha Kapania, MD, quickly became interested in the pulmonary pathologies that span the life of a patient, beginning in childhood and lasting into adulthood.

Now in her first year of fellowship at the University of Louisville and as the recipient of the 2024 Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship from CHEST and the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors (APCCMPD), Dr. Kapania will utilize the support of the program to explore this space.

“Recent advancements in pediatric pulmonary medicine have prolonged the expected lifespan of many previously fatal diagnoses, and I have realized that, despite these innovations, there remains very little communication between the adult and pediatric subspecialists,” Dr. Kapania said. “There is minimal education on congenital pulmonary pathology in adult medicine and, perhaps equally as important, negligible instruction on the cultural and social changes that patients experience when they transition from pediatric to adult providers.”

In residency, Dr. Kapania witnessed the success of cystic fibrosis (CF) clinics and hopes to leverage that experience to advance transitional care across disease states. Using the guidelines set to transition patients with CF from pediatric to adult care as a model, Dr. Kapania will focus her time on creating a streamlined process for patients living with severe asthma and patients with neuromuscular diseases who are chronically vented.

“Patients who are chronically vented tend not to have a lot of resources dedicated to them and are a resource- and time-heavy population,” Dr. Kapania said. “Because there is no defined process to transition these patients, we tend to see pediatric providers hold on to these patients for a lot longer than they do with [patients with CF]. A set of evidence-based practices would go a long way in this space.”

Through the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship, Dr. Kapania will work closely with the program’s selected mentor, Başak Çoruh, MD, FCCP, who is an Associate Professor of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and Director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellowship program at the University of Washington.

“I’m looking forward to working with Dr. Çoruh for career guidance and for support of my area of interest within [pulmonary and critical care medicine],” Dr. Kapania said. “She is an established physician who has a lot of insight to share, and this is a great opportunity to make the best of my fellowship.”


This is the first year for the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship. To learn more about the scholarship, visit the CHEST website.

nasustuuaphetipresulobauushetrelijudogucolesteshihofriwrawujehokamadowrocheluphocrifrepromavicuthatemoweswupostovocojosofradrutromivifredosiwrustonojiv

During residency training at the Rush University Medical Center in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Esha Kapania, MD, quickly became interested in the pulmonary pathologies that span the life of a patient, beginning in childhood and lasting into adulthood.

Now in her first year of fellowship at the University of Louisville and as the recipient of the 2024 Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship from CHEST and the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors (APCCMPD), Dr. Kapania will utilize the support of the program to explore this space.

“Recent advancements in pediatric pulmonary medicine have prolonged the expected lifespan of many previously fatal diagnoses, and I have realized that, despite these innovations, there remains very little communication between the adult and pediatric subspecialists,” Dr. Kapania said. “There is minimal education on congenital pulmonary pathology in adult medicine and, perhaps equally as important, negligible instruction on the cultural and social changes that patients experience when they transition from pediatric to adult providers.”

In residency, Dr. Kapania witnessed the success of cystic fibrosis (CF) clinics and hopes to leverage that experience to advance transitional care across disease states. Using the guidelines set to transition patients with CF from pediatric to adult care as a model, Dr. Kapania will focus her time on creating a streamlined process for patients living with severe asthma and patients with neuromuscular diseases who are chronically vented.

“Patients who are chronically vented tend not to have a lot of resources dedicated to them and are a resource- and time-heavy population,” Dr. Kapania said. “Because there is no defined process to transition these patients, we tend to see pediatric providers hold on to these patients for a lot longer than they do with [patients with CF]. A set of evidence-based practices would go a long way in this space.”

Through the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship, Dr. Kapania will work closely with the program’s selected mentor, Başak Çoruh, MD, FCCP, who is an Associate Professor of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and Director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellowship program at the University of Washington.

“I’m looking forward to working with Dr. Çoruh for career guidance and for support of my area of interest within [pulmonary and critical care medicine],” Dr. Kapania said. “She is an established physician who has a lot of insight to share, and this is a great opportunity to make the best of my fellowship.”


This is the first year for the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship. To learn more about the scholarship, visit the CHEST website.

nasustuuaphetipresulobauushetrelijudogucolesteshihofriwrawujehokamadowrocheluphocrifrepromavicuthatemoweswupostovocojosofradrutromivifredosiwrustonojiv

During residency training at the Rush University Medical Center in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Esha Kapania, MD, quickly became interested in the pulmonary pathologies that span the life of a patient, beginning in childhood and lasting into adulthood.

Now in her first year of fellowship at the University of Louisville and as the recipient of the 2024 Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship from CHEST and the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors (APCCMPD), Dr. Kapania will utilize the support of the program to explore this space.

“Recent advancements in pediatric pulmonary medicine have prolonged the expected lifespan of many previously fatal diagnoses, and I have realized that, despite these innovations, there remains very little communication between the adult and pediatric subspecialists,” Dr. Kapania said. “There is minimal education on congenital pulmonary pathology in adult medicine and, perhaps equally as important, negligible instruction on the cultural and social changes that patients experience when they transition from pediatric to adult providers.”

In residency, Dr. Kapania witnessed the success of cystic fibrosis (CF) clinics and hopes to leverage that experience to advance transitional care across disease states. Using the guidelines set to transition patients with CF from pediatric to adult care as a model, Dr. Kapania will focus her time on creating a streamlined process for patients living with severe asthma and patients with neuromuscular diseases who are chronically vented.

“Patients who are chronically vented tend not to have a lot of resources dedicated to them and are a resource- and time-heavy population,” Dr. Kapania said. “Because there is no defined process to transition these patients, we tend to see pediatric providers hold on to these patients for a lot longer than they do with [patients with CF]. A set of evidence-based practices would go a long way in this space.”

Through the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship, Dr. Kapania will work closely with the program’s selected mentor, Başak Çoruh, MD, FCCP, who is an Associate Professor of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and Director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellowship program at the University of Washington.

“I’m looking forward to working with Dr. Çoruh for career guidance and for support of my area of interest within [pulmonary and critical care medicine],” Dr. Kapania said. “She is an established physician who has a lot of insight to share, and this is a great opportunity to make the best of my fellowship.”


This is the first year for the APCCMPD and CHEST Medical Educator Scholar Diversity Fellowship. To learn more about the scholarship, visit the CHEST website.

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2024 is on track to offer the highest tier of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine education that attendees have come to expect from the CHEST Annual Meeting.

While planning for the meeting started with the open call for 2024 sessions at the conclusion of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, CHEST 2024 began to take shape when the schedule—and the curriculum chairs—came together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Program Committee gathered in person at CHEST headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to review submissions and solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2024 meeting, taking place in Boston, October 6 to 9.

Following CHEST 2023 in Honolulu, those planning for Boston were brimming with excitement to start planning a meeting closer to home. One event in particular that committee members are excited for will be a session dedicated to the “Black Angels,” the nurses who helped cure TB, featuring surviving member, Virginia Allen, and book (The Black Angels: The Untold Story of the Nurses Who Helped Cure Tuberculosis) author, Maria Smilios. Because of the location, both Allen and Smilios will be able to join on-site in Boston and will bring with them, for the first time on public display, a curated selection of papers from Edward Robitzek, MD, courtesy of the Robitzek family. This collection will include records of TB treatment trials that forever changed the course of the disease in 1952.

In addition to this look into the history of chest medicine, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will also feature the latest advancements in the field, including the anticipated hot topic of the meeting, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine.

“There [are] going to be a lot of hot topics covered at CHEST 2024, like bronchoscopy approaches, treatments for COPD,” said Gabe Bosslet, MD, FCCP, Chair of the Scientific Program Committee. “But if there was one that sort of was the outlier this year, I think it’s artificial intelligence and its use in pulmonary and critical care medicine.”

The sessions covering AI include its presence in medical education, as well as treating interstitial lung disease, chest infections, and more.

Beyond the latest in artificial technology, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will feature more than 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups with something for everyone in chest medicine:

• Airways Disorders
• Critical Care
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonology/Bronchoscopy/Radiology
• Sleep Medicine

The meeting will host topics for a wide range of experience levels (from those still in training to those who are years or decades into their careers) and welcomes all members of the care team. “These are not physician-centric issues, topics, or sessions. These are sessions that if you’re working around patients with pulmonary or critical care diseases, these are definitively for you,” Dr. Bosslet said.

With something for everyone—and for the first time ever in Boston—CHEST 2024 will not be a meeting to miss. Keep an eye out for registration to open in May, as early bird pricing will be available for a short time.

Dr. Danckers’ social media takeover

For an inside look into what happens during a meeting of the Scientific Program Committee, we invited member of the committee, Mauricio Danckers, MD, FCCP, to take the reins of CHEST social media to share his experience.

Dr. Danckers posted behind-the-scenes pictures of each of the curriculum chairs and teased a picture of the completed session schedule.

To see the takeover posts, visit the CHEST Instagram (@accpCHEST) and view the CHEST 2024 story pinned to the top of the profile.

167277_image1_web.jpg

167277_image 2_web.jpg

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2024 is on track to offer the highest tier of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine education that attendees have come to expect from the CHEST Annual Meeting.

While planning for the meeting started with the open call for 2024 sessions at the conclusion of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, CHEST 2024 began to take shape when the schedule—and the curriculum chairs—came together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Program Committee gathered in person at CHEST headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to review submissions and solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2024 meeting, taking place in Boston, October 6 to 9.

Following CHEST 2023 in Honolulu, those planning for Boston were brimming with excitement to start planning a meeting closer to home. One event in particular that committee members are excited for will be a session dedicated to the “Black Angels,” the nurses who helped cure TB, featuring surviving member, Virginia Allen, and book (The Black Angels: The Untold Story of the Nurses Who Helped Cure Tuberculosis) author, Maria Smilios. Because of the location, both Allen and Smilios will be able to join on-site in Boston and will bring with them, for the first time on public display, a curated selection of papers from Edward Robitzek, MD, courtesy of the Robitzek family. This collection will include records of TB treatment trials that forever changed the course of the disease in 1952.

In addition to this look into the history of chest medicine, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will also feature the latest advancements in the field, including the anticipated hot topic of the meeting, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine.

“There [are] going to be a lot of hot topics covered at CHEST 2024, like bronchoscopy approaches, treatments for COPD,” said Gabe Bosslet, MD, FCCP, Chair of the Scientific Program Committee. “But if there was one that sort of was the outlier this year, I think it’s artificial intelligence and its use in pulmonary and critical care medicine.”

The sessions covering AI include its presence in medical education, as well as treating interstitial lung disease, chest infections, and more.

Beyond the latest in artificial technology, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will feature more than 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups with something for everyone in chest medicine:

• Airways Disorders
• Critical Care
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonology/Bronchoscopy/Radiology
• Sleep Medicine

The meeting will host topics for a wide range of experience levels (from those still in training to those who are years or decades into their careers) and welcomes all members of the care team. “These are not physician-centric issues, topics, or sessions. These are sessions that if you’re working around patients with pulmonary or critical care diseases, these are definitively for you,” Dr. Bosslet said.

With something for everyone—and for the first time ever in Boston—CHEST 2024 will not be a meeting to miss. Keep an eye out for registration to open in May, as early bird pricing will be available for a short time.

Dr. Danckers’ social media takeover

For an inside look into what happens during a meeting of the Scientific Program Committee, we invited member of the committee, Mauricio Danckers, MD, FCCP, to take the reins of CHEST social media to share his experience.

Dr. Danckers posted behind-the-scenes pictures of each of the curriculum chairs and teased a picture of the completed session schedule.

To see the takeover posts, visit the CHEST Instagram (@accpCHEST) and view the CHEST 2024 story pinned to the top of the profile.

167277_image1_web.jpg

167277_image 2_web.jpg

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2024 is on track to offer the highest tier of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine education that attendees have come to expect from the CHEST Annual Meeting.

While planning for the meeting started with the open call for 2024 sessions at the conclusion of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, CHEST 2024 began to take shape when the schedule—and the curriculum chairs—came together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Program Committee gathered in person at CHEST headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to review submissions and solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2024 meeting, taking place in Boston, October 6 to 9.

Following CHEST 2023 in Honolulu, those planning for Boston were brimming with excitement to start planning a meeting closer to home. One event in particular that committee members are excited for will be a session dedicated to the “Black Angels,” the nurses who helped cure TB, featuring surviving member, Virginia Allen, and book (The Black Angels: The Untold Story of the Nurses Who Helped Cure Tuberculosis) author, Maria Smilios. Because of the location, both Allen and Smilios will be able to join on-site in Boston and will bring with them, for the first time on public display, a curated selection of papers from Edward Robitzek, MD, courtesy of the Robitzek family. This collection will include records of TB treatment trials that forever changed the course of the disease in 1952.

In addition to this look into the history of chest medicine, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will also feature the latest advancements in the field, including the anticipated hot topic of the meeting, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine.

“There [are] going to be a lot of hot topics covered at CHEST 2024, like bronchoscopy approaches, treatments for COPD,” said Gabe Bosslet, MD, FCCP, Chair of the Scientific Program Committee. “But if there was one that sort of was the outlier this year, I think it’s artificial intelligence and its use in pulmonary and critical care medicine.”

The sessions covering AI include its presence in medical education, as well as treating interstitial lung disease, chest infections, and more.

Beyond the latest in artificial technology, the CHEST Annual Meeting 2024 will feature more than 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups with something for everyone in chest medicine:

• Airways Disorders
• Critical Care
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonology/Bronchoscopy/Radiology
• Sleep Medicine

The meeting will host topics for a wide range of experience levels (from those still in training to those who are years or decades into their careers) and welcomes all members of the care team. “These are not physician-centric issues, topics, or sessions. These are sessions that if you’re working around patients with pulmonary or critical care diseases, these are definitively for you,” Dr. Bosslet said.

With something for everyone—and for the first time ever in Boston—CHEST 2024 will not be a meeting to miss. Keep an eye out for registration to open in May, as early bird pricing will be available for a short time.

Dr. Danckers’ social media takeover

For an inside look into what happens during a meeting of the Scientific Program Committee, we invited member of the committee, Mauricio Danckers, MD, FCCP, to take the reins of CHEST social media to share his experience.

Dr. Danckers posted behind-the-scenes pictures of each of the curriculum chairs and teased a picture of the completed session schedule.

To see the takeover posts, visit the CHEST Instagram (@accpCHEST) and view the CHEST 2024 story pinned to the top of the profile.

167277_image1_web.jpg

167277_image 2_web.jpg

Maximous_Stephanie_web.jpg

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Maximous_Stephanie_web.jpg

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Maximous_Stephanie_web.jpg

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Li_ChienChing_web.jpg

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.

Li_ChienChing_web.jpg

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.

Li_ChienChing_web.jpg

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.