Pulmonology

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

If standard therapies don’t give relief to patients with refractory cough associated with interstitial lung disease, maybe a little poison could do the trick.

Among 41 patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAFs) who had intractable cough, treatment with the traditional Chinese medicine semen strychni was associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, reported Mingwan Su, MD, from Guang’anmen Hospital and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China.

“Semen strychni is associated with reduction in cough and can be an effective drug therapy for refractory cough in association with IPAFs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Semen strychni is derived from the dried seeds of the plant Strychnos nux-vomica L. Its main toxic component is strychnine, the poison said to be favored by legendary mystery writer Agatha Christie.

Semen strychni is a central nervous system agonist that has reported efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The medication also has immunomodulatory properties, Su said, and is thought to have beneficial effects against cough associated with IPAFs by reducing hypersensitivity.
 

Case-Control Study

To test this, Su and colleagues conducted a single-center retrospective study of the effects of semen strychni on 41 patients with IPAF-associated cough who were treated with low-dose oral semen strychni 300 mg/d for 2 weeks. These patients were paired with 41 control individuals matched for age, sex, and disease course. Control individuals received standard of care therapies.

The investigators found that for the primary endpoint of a change in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline among patients treated with semen strychni compared with control individuals, with a baseline mean VAS score of 4.9 reduced to 2.1 at the end of treatment, vs 4.6 pre- to 3.3 post-treatment for control individuals. This difference translated to an odds ratio (OR) favoring semen strychni of 0.75 (P < .001).

In addition, the toxic compound was also associated with greater patient-reported improvement in the quality of life, as measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a 19-item scale that measures quality of life for people with chronic cough. Patients in the experimental arm had mean scores of 11.9 before treatment and 19 at the end of therapy compared with 12 and 15.1 points, respectively, among individuals in the control arm. This translated to an OR of 3.8 (P < .001) for patients on semen strychni.

The toxin appeared to be generally safe. There were no reported cases of pain, fainting, or bleeding in either study group, although there was one case of muscle twitching in the semen strychni group, Su reported.

There is evidence to suggest that semen strychni may have a calming effect on cough through action in the STAT3 pathway, considered to be a promising therapeutic target for musculoskeletal conditions, Su noted.
 

Not Ready for Prime Time

“My feeling is that these kinds of abstracts are welcome, but this is far from reality at this point,” said Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at the University of California San Francisco.

“We need some kind of a regulated way of understanding dose characteristics and pharmacokinetics, and so it should be followed by more systematic studies,” he said in an interview.

Both Balasubramanian and his co-moderator Andrew R. Berman, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Rheumatology at Rutgers Health New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, said that they sympathize with clinicians and their patients who seek out unusual therapies such as semen strychni.

“It’s very frustrating to treat chronic cough, especially associated with fibrotic lung disease, and the extent to which researchers will go to find that one product that perhaps can make a difference is understandable,” Berman told this news organization.

Su did not report a study funding source. Su, Balasubramanian, and Berman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.