COPD

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Several female reproductive factors across the life cycle were significantly associated with increased COPD risk, including age at menarche, number of children, infertility, pregnancy outcomes, and age at menopause.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from women in the International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) consortium, which includes 27 observational studies involving more than 850,000 women in 12 countries.
• The current study included 283,070 women, 3.8% of whom developed COPD over a median of 11 years.
• The researchers examined the association between COPD and age at menarche, number of children, infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and age at natural menopause.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with menarche at age 11 years or younger (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), and at 16 years and older (HR, 1.24), as well as having three or more children.
• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with a history of infertility, and with miscarriage, or stillbirth compared with no miscarriages or stillbirths; the risk increased with the number of miscarriages or stillbirths (HR, 1.36 for ≥ 3 miscarriages and 1.67 for ≥ 2 stillbirths). 
• COPD risk was significantly increased with earlier age at the time of natural menopause (HR, 1.69 for those aged < 40 years and 1.42 for those aged 40-44 years compared with those aged 50-51 years). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms linking multiple female reproductive histories and COPD,” which could include autoimmune components and social/environmental factors, the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Chen Liang, MD, of the University of Queensland, Australia. The study was published online in BMJ Thorax). 

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included volunteer bias, underreporting of COPD, potential confounders such as childhood respiratory infections and smoking history, and the inability to assess the effects of medications including contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy on COPD. 

DISCLOSURES:

The InterLACE project is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Centres of Research Excellence. Corresponding author Gita D. Mishra disclosed support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Fellowship. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Several female reproductive factors across the life cycle were significantly associated with increased COPD risk, including age at menarche, number of children, infertility, pregnancy outcomes, and age at menopause.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from women in the International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) consortium, which includes 27 observational studies involving more than 850,000 women in 12 countries.
• The current study included 283,070 women, 3.8% of whom developed COPD over a median of 11 years.
• The researchers examined the association between COPD and age at menarche, number of children, infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and age at natural menopause.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with menarche at age 11 years or younger (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), and at 16 years and older (HR, 1.24), as well as having three or more children.
• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with a history of infertility, and with miscarriage, or stillbirth compared with no miscarriages or stillbirths; the risk increased with the number of miscarriages or stillbirths (HR, 1.36 for ≥ 3 miscarriages and 1.67 for ≥ 2 stillbirths). 
• COPD risk was significantly increased with earlier age at the time of natural menopause (HR, 1.69 for those aged < 40 years and 1.42 for those aged 40-44 years compared with those aged 50-51 years). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms linking multiple female reproductive histories and COPD,” which could include autoimmune components and social/environmental factors, the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Chen Liang, MD, of the University of Queensland, Australia. The study was published online in BMJ Thorax). 

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included volunteer bias, underreporting of COPD, potential confounders such as childhood respiratory infections and smoking history, and the inability to assess the effects of medications including contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy on COPD. 

DISCLOSURES:

The InterLACE project is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Centres of Research Excellence. Corresponding author Gita D. Mishra disclosed support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Fellowship. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Several female reproductive factors across the life cycle were significantly associated with increased COPD risk, including age at menarche, number of children, infertility, pregnancy outcomes, and age at menopause.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from women in the International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) consortium, which includes 27 observational studies involving more than 850,000 women in 12 countries.
• The current study included 283,070 women, 3.8% of whom developed COPD over a median of 11 years.
• The researchers examined the association between COPD and age at menarche, number of children, infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and age at natural menopause.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with menarche at age 11 years or younger (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), and at 16 years and older (HR, 1.24), as well as having three or more children.
• Higher risk of COPD was significantly associated with a history of infertility, and with miscarriage, or stillbirth compared with no miscarriages or stillbirths; the risk increased with the number of miscarriages or stillbirths (HR, 1.36 for ≥ 3 miscarriages and 1.67 for ≥ 2 stillbirths). 
• COPD risk was significantly increased with earlier age at the time of natural menopause (HR, 1.69 for those aged < 40 years and 1.42 for those aged 40-44 years compared with those aged 50-51 years). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms linking multiple female reproductive histories and COPD,” which could include autoimmune components and social/environmental factors, the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Chen Liang, MD, of the University of Queensland, Australia. The study was published online in BMJ Thorax). 

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included volunteer bias, underreporting of COPD, potential confounders such as childhood respiratory infections and smoking history, and the inability to assess the effects of medications including contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy on COPD. 

DISCLOSURES:

The InterLACE project is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Centres of Research Excellence. Corresponding author Gita D. Mishra disclosed support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Fellowship. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
• The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
• The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
• Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
• Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
• The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
• The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
• Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
• Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
• The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
• The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
• Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
• Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What’s the message here?

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

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

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

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What’s the message here?

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

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

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

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What’s the message here?

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

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

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

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

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

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

After Smoking Cessation

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

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

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

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

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

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

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

30 Years Later

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

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

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

An Underestimation?

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

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

After Smoking Cessation

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

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

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

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

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

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

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

30 Years Later

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

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

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

An Underestimation?

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

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

After Smoking Cessation

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

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

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

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

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

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

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

30 Years Later

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

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

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

An Underestimation?

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

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

What the Studies Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

What the Studies Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

What the Studies Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

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

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

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

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

Don’t Overestimate AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

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

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

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

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

Don’t Overestimate AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

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

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

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

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

Don’t Overestimate AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE: 

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE: 

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE: 

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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