Chest Medicine
Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections: Key Updates and Practical Strategies
25 Jan, 2025 | 22:53h | UTCIntroduction: This summary highlights essential points from a recent review in The Lancet addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial (MDR-GNB) infections. It discusses the global epidemiology, diagnostic advances, and therapeutic approaches, aiming to guide clinicians in managing these difficult-to-treat pathogens, which include resistant Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii.
Key Recommendations:
- Use Rapid Diagnostics to Guide Therapy
- Employ molecular tests (e.g., multiplex PCR) to detect resistance genes quickly and facilitate targeted treatment.
- Consider phenotypic assays (e.g., CarbaNP, carbapenemase inactivation method) and MALDI-TOF for rapid organism identification and mechanism-specific information.
- Optimize Antibiotic Selection Based on Resistance Mechanisms
- AmpC-Producing Enterobacterales (e.g., Enterobacter spp.): Use cefepime if in vitro susceptibility is confirmed.
- ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales: Carbapenems (e.g., meropenem) remain the mainstay for serious infections.
- Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE): Use novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor agents (e.g., ceftazidime–avibactam, meropenem–vaborbactam, imipenem–relebactam) based on specific carbapenemase mechanisms. For metallo-β-lactamase producers, consider aztreonam plus ceftazidime–avibactam or future co-formulations (e.g., aztreonam–avibactam).
- DTR-Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Ceftolozane–tazobactam is preferred if active in vitro. Ceftazidime–avibactam or imipenem–relebactam may also be options depending on local susceptibility data.
- Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB): High-dose sulbactam combinations (e.g., sulbactam–durlobactam) were studied in combination with imipenem–cilastatin during trials; further data are needed to clarify optimal clinical use.
- Consider Non-Antibiotic Modalities for Refractory Cases
- Investigational therapies—such as bacteriophages and antivirulence agents—are under clinical evaluation.
- Fecal microbiota transplantation has shown variable decolonization efficacy in small studies, and randomized trials have yielded limited or inconclusive results.
- Emphasize Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Control
- Restrict newer agents to cases where standard treatments have failed or resistance patterns require them.
- Maintain rigorous infection control practices (e.g., contact precautions, hand hygiene, isolation measures) to reduce nosocomial spread of MDR-GNB.
- Observational data suggest shorter antibiotic courses (7–10 days) might be adequate in select cases, but robust clinical trial evidence is still pending.
Conclusion:
By combining rapid diagnostics, judicious use of existing and novel antibiotics, and robust infection prevention measures, clinicians can significantly improve outcomes for patients with MDR-GNB infections. However, access to advanced diagnostics and new therapies remains limited in many regions, and further clinical trials are needed to determine optimal treatment and duration strategies. Early mechanism-focused detection and targeted therapy enhance clinical success, reduce toxicity, and help preserve the efficacy of newly approved agents.
Reference:
Macesic N, Uhlemann A-C, Peleg AY. Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. The Lancet. 2025;405(10474):257-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02081-6
Network Meta-analysis: Oseltamivir Fails to Improve Key Outcomes in Nonsevere Influenza
20 Jan, 2025 | 11:17h | UTCBackground: Influenza causes significant respiratory morbidity and can lead to severe complications, especially in high-risk individuals. Current guidelines endorse antiviral therapy, yet the evidence for reducing mortality, hospital admission, and symptom duration in nonsevere cases remains controversial. Recent recommendations have often focused on neuraminidase inhibitors (e.g., oseltamivir), despite uncertainties regarding clinical impact and adverse effects. An editorial accompanying this study underscores the need to reexamine routine antiviral use, especially oseltamivir, given minimal benefit observed in outpatient populations.
Objective: To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral medications (baloxavir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, umifenovir, favipiravir, and amantadine) in treating patients with nonsevere influenza.
Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis included 73 randomized clinical trials (N=34,332) that evaluated antivirals vs placebo, standard care, or another antiviral. Eligible studies enrolled nonhospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected influenza. Outcomes included mortality, hospital admission, time to symptom alleviation, adverse events, and emergence of antiviral resistance. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Pooled estimates were generated with a frequentist random-effects model, focusing on both absolute risk differences and relative measures.
Results:
- Mortality: Across all antiviral agents, there was high-certainty evidence of little or no effect on mortality in both low-risk and high-risk patients compared with standard care or placebo.
- Hospital Admission: In low-risk patients, none of the antivirals significantly altered admission rates (high certainty). In high-risk patients, oseltamivir had little or no effect on hospitalization (high certainty), whereas baloxavir may reduce admissions (low certainty).
- Time to Alleviation of Symptoms: Baloxavir shortened symptom duration by approximately one day (moderate certainty) without increasing adverse events. Oseltamivir and zanamivir likely produced smaller decreases (<1 day; moderate certainty). Umifenovir may also shorten symptoms (low certainty).
- Adverse Events: Baloxavir did not increase treatment-related adverse events (high certainty) but may lead to viral resistance in around 10% of cases (low certainty). Oseltamivir probably increases adverse events such as nausea and vomiting (moderate certainty).
- Serious Outcomes (ICU Admission, Duration of Hospitalization): Data were limited, with uncertainty regarding meaningful reductions in these measures.
Conclusions: Baloxavir may reduce hospital admissions for high-risk patients and significantly shorten symptom duration without notable treatment-related adverse events. Oseltamivir shows little effect on mortality or hospitalization for nonsevere influenza, with only modest (likely not clinically important) reductions in symptom duration and a higher rate of adverse events. Other antivirals either demonstrate uncertain clinical benefits or likely provide no major advantages in this patient population.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that routine use of oseltamivir for outpatients with nonsevere influenza should be reconsidered, especially in low-risk groups. Baloxavir appears favorable for high-risk patients, though clinicians should monitor potential drug resistance. Given the minimal impact on major outcomes and the cost considerations, prescribers should weigh the benefits and harms of these antivirals, aligning treatment decisions with patient risk profiles and clinical judgment.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a comprehensive search, large pooled population, and rigorous GRADE-based analysis of certainty. Limitations involve low event rates for hospital admissions and mortality, limiting power for certain outcomes, and sparse data on some antivirals (e.g., amantadine). Additionally, few trials reported ICU admissions or mechanical ventilation needs, restricting conclusions about severe complications.
Future Research: Further high-quality studies should evaluate patient-important outcomes such as mechanical ventilation and severe complications in diverse populations. Investigations into combination strategies, alternative dosing, and resistance patterns would help clarify the long-term viability of baloxavir and other antivirals, particularly in high-risk cohorts.
Reference:
- Gao Y, Zhao Y, Liu M, et al. Antiviral Medications for Treatment of Nonsevere Influenza: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online January 13, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.7193
- Baghdadi JD, Grady D, Morgan DJ. The Limited Role for Antiviral Therapy in Influenza. JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online January 13, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.7258
RCT: High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Noninferior to Noninvasive Ventilation for Most Acute Respiratory Failure Causes
13 Jan, 2025 | 13:11h | UTCBackground: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) arises from diverse etiologies and can manifest as hypoxemic or hypercapnic events. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are common noninvasive respiratory support modalities, but robust comparative data in various ARF subgroups have been limited. Prior research suggests NIV may benefit chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), yet for hypoxemic failure (including COVID-19 and immunocompromised populations), HFNO is often favored for its comfort and physiological advantages. The RENOVATE trial was designed to assess whether HFNO is noninferior to NIV for preventing intubation or death among five distinct groups of patients with ARF.
Objective: To determine if HFNO is noninferior to NIV in terms of the composite outcome of endotracheal intubation or death within seven days in patients with ARF, categorized into five subgroups: (1) nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemic ARF, (2) immunocompromised with hypoxemic ARF, (3) COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis, (4) ACPE, and (5) hypoxemic COVID-19.
Methods: This multicenter, adaptive, noninferiority randomized clinical trial enrolled 1800 hospitalized adults across 33 Brazilian centers. Patients were stratified by ARF etiology and randomized 1:1 to receive either HFNO or NIV. Treatment protocols allowed HFNO escalation to NIV (particularly for COPD or ACPE) if needed. The primary outcome was defined using a Bayesian hierarchical model with dynamic borrowing across subgroups; noninferiority was met if the posterior probability for an odds ratio (OR) below 1.55 reached ≥0.992. Predefined futility and superiority thresholds guided interim analyses, with a maximum sample size of 2000.
Results: Of 1800 randomized patients, 1766 completed the study (mean age 64 years; 40% women). The primary outcome (intubation or death by day 7) occurred in 39.0% (HFNO) vs 38.1% (NIV). HFNO was noninferior in four subgroups:
- Nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia: 32.5% vs 33.1% (OR 1.02; posterior probability of noninferiority 0.999).
- COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis: 28.6% vs 26.2% (OR 1.05; probability 0.992).
- ACPE: 10.3% vs 21.3% (OR 0.97; probability 0.997).
- Hypoxemic COVID-19: 51.3% vs 47.0% (OR 1.13; probability 0.997).
The immunocompromised subgroup stopped enrollment early for futility; final results there did not confirm noninferiority (57.1% vs 36.4%; OR 1.07; probability 0.989). No significant differences in 28- or 90-day mortality emerged, although mortality rates were generally higher than in some previous trials. Comfort scores favored HFNO, and rates of serious adverse events were similar between groups.
Conclusions: In four of five ARF subgroups, HFNO met predefined noninferiority criteria compared with NIV regarding endotracheal intubation or death at seven days. However, immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF remain an area of uncertainty, as do smaller subgroups (e.g., COPD) under non-borrowing analyses. Clinicians may consider HFNO as an alternative initial approach, recognizing that rescue NIV may still be necessary, particularly in COPD exacerbations.
Implications for Practice: These findings support using HFNO for a broad range of ARF etiologies as a first-line therapy. HFNO’s ease of use, patient comfort, and comparable safety profile may make it especially appealing. Nevertheless, clinicians should remain vigilant in immunocompromised patients and in COPD exacerbations when hypercapnia is pronounced. Potential cost variations between HFNO and NIV may influence real-world adoption, and local resources, staff expertise, and patient tolerance should guide final decisions.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, diverse sample and a robust Bayesian adaptive design that allowed dynamic borrowing across subgroups. This approach increased precision but also introduced heterogeneity concerns. Some patient groups (particularly immunocompromised and COPD) were relatively small, limiting definitive conclusions in those strata. Additionally, early stopping for futility in immunocompromised patients curtailed full enrollment, and the trial compared HFNO only with face-mask NIV (rather than alternatives such as helmet CPAP).
Future Research: Further large-scale studies should refine whether HFNO can supplant NIV in COPD exacerbations and immunocompromised populations. Investigations on cost-effectiveness, patient-centered outcomes (comfort, quality of life), and comparative models (e.g., helmet NIV) are also warranted.
Reference:
• RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The RENOVATE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.26244
• Frat JP, Le Pape S, Thille AW. Editorial: Is High-Flow Oxygen the Standard for All Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure? JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.25906
• Freund Y, Vromant A. Editorial: Reevaluating Respiratory Support in Acute Respiratory Failure—Insights From the RENOVATE Trial and Implications for Practice. JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.25869
Network Meta-Analysis: TMP-SMX May Need Reassessment as First-Line Therapy for PCP in People With HIV
13 Jan, 2025 | 10:25h | UTCBackground: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) remains a severe opportunistic infection in people living with HIV (PWH), especially those with low CD4 counts. Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) is widely recommended as first-line therapy; however, its toxicity profile can limit use. Alternative regimens such as dapsone–trimethoprim, clindamycin–primaquine, atovaquone, and pentamidine have been explored, but comprehensive comparative data are scarce.
Objective: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy (treatment failure, mortality) and tolerability (treatment change due to toxicity) of PCP treatment regimens in PWH. The goal was to determine whether TMP-SMX maintains superiority across these outcomes or if alternative regimens offer similar efficacy with improved safety profiles.
Methods: Researchers systematically searched Embase, Medline, and CENTRAL (inception through 3 February 2024) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two PCP treatment regimens in PWH. Independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and performed full-text reviews. Data extraction included population demographics, treatment arms, outcomes (treatment failure, all-cause mortality, treatment change), and risk-of-bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. A network meta-analysis using a frequentist random-effects model was performed to integrate direct and indirect comparisons, estimating relative treatment effects (risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals) and generating rankings via the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
Results: Fourteen RCTs (1983–1996) with 1,788 participants across 27 treatment arms were included. No regimen demonstrated significant superiority over TMP-SMX in direct comparisons, although TMP-SMX outperformed atovaquone and trimetrexate plus folinic acid in reducing treatment failure. In the network analysis, clindamycin–primaquine, intravenous pentamidine, and TMP-SMX all had favorable SUCRA values for preventing treatment failure. For all-cause mortality, dapsone–trimethoprim and intravenous pentamidine ranked highest, while TMP-SMX was better than atovaquone in direct comparison. Notably, for tolerability, all alternative regimens tended to be safer than TMP-SMX, which ranked worst for toxicity. Inhaled pentamidine, trimetrexate plus folinic acid, and atovaquone were the best-tolerated therapies.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that TMP-SMX, although commonly used, might not be universally superior to all other regimens when balancing efficacy and safety in PWH with PCP. When the risk of renal or hematologic complications is high, considering clindamycin–primaquine or intravenous pentamidine may provide comparable efficacy with a more favorable safety profile. Inhaled pentamidine or atovaquone may offer good tolerability but should be carefully assessed for efficacy in moderate-to-severe disease.
Implications for Practice: When managing PCP in PWH, TMP-SMX may not always be the ideal standalone first-line choice, especially in patients at high risk for renal or hematologic complications. Clindamycin–primaquine and intravenous pentamidine could represent viable alternatives for clinicians seeking to balance efficacy with improved safety. Inhaled pentamidine or atovaquone may offer strong tolerability but should be carefully evaluated for their effectiveness in moderate-to-severe disease.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a robust search strategy, strict inclusion criteria of RCTs, and the use of a network meta-analysis to integrate direct and indirect comparisons. Limitations involve the older timeframe of the included trials (most conducted before the modern ART era) and heterogeneous definitions of treatment failure, which may limit generalizability to broader contemporary clinical settings. Women and other high-risk populations were underrepresented, presenting another limitation.
Future Research: Contemporary RCTs should address the optimal dose and duration of TMP-SMX and alternative agents, include underrepresented groups (women, older adults, patients with renal impairment), and consider modern management of HIV and critical care practices. Ongoing investigations of novel agents like rezafungin may further refine first-line PCP treatment strategies.
Reference: Hatzl S, Posch F, Scholz L, … Bassetti M, Hoenigl M, Krause R. Comparative efficacy and safety of treatment regimens for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in people living with HIV: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Published online December 26, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.12.024
2024 Focused Guideline Update on Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, ARDS, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia
13 Jan, 2025 | 11:04h | UTCIntroduction: This summary presents the key points from a 2024 focused update of the guidelines on corticosteroid use for hospitalized adult patients with sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Developed by a panel of international experts in critical care, endocrinology, and methodology, the update aims to incorporate new evidence into recommendations regarding dosage, duration, and timing of corticosteroid therapy. Pediatric-specific recommendations could not be made due to limited data.
Key Recommendations:
- Sepsis and Septic Shock
- Conditional Recommendation: In adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressor support, the panel suggests administering corticosteroids (typically hydrocortisone 200–300 mg/day IV for about 5–7 days, with or without fludrocortisone).
- Strong Recommendation Against High Dose/Short Duration: High-dose corticosteroids (> 400 mg/day hydrocortisone equivalent given for fewer than 3 days) are not recommended, as they confer increased risk of adverse effects without demonstrating benefit.
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
- Conditional Recommendation: In adult patients hospitalized with ARDS (including those with COVID-19 ARDS), the panel suggests using corticosteroids (e.g., methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) to lower short-term mortality and potentially reduce duration of mechanical ventilation. No specific agent or dosing regimen is mandated; choices should be guided by clinical judgment and patient context.
- Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP)
- Strong Recommendation (Severe CAP): In adults hospitalized with severe bacterial CAP, the panel recommends corticosteroids (commonly moderate-dose IV hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone for 5–7 days). Recent data indicate a clear mortality benefit in these high-risk patients.
- No Recommendation (Less Severe CAP): For adults with less severe bacterial CAP, current evidence is inconclusive regarding mortality benefit. Although some findings suggest improvements in certain outcomes, the panel reached no consensus on whether corticosteroids should be routinely administered.
Conclusion: These updated guidelines emphasize the overall safety and potential survival benefits of corticosteroids in specific populations with critical illness, particularly those with septic shock, ARDS, or severe CAP. For each condition, the recommendations balance desirable effects—such as reduced mortality, organ dysfunction, and length of hospital stay—against possible harms, including hyperglycemia and neuromuscular weakness. Evidence remains insufficient to support pediatric guidance or clarify whether less severe CAP consistently merits treatment. Future research should address optimal dosing strategies, pediatric outcomes, long-term adverse effects, and potential cost-effectiveness across diverse healthcare settings.
Reference:
Chaudhuri, Dipayan MD, MSc, FRCPC, et al. 2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Critical Care Medicine 52(5): e219–e233, May 2024. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006172
ATS Guidelines on Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis and Antifungal Strategies in Critically Ill Adults
7 Jan, 2025 | 12:29h | UTCIntroduction: This summary provides an overview of a recent American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline addressing two core questions in adult pulmonary and critical care practice. First, it examines whether combination therapy with a mold-active triazole (most data concern voriconazole, though newer agents such as isavuconazole or posaconazole may also be considered) plus an echinocandin (specifically caspofungin, micafungin, or anidulafungin) offers added benefit over mold-active triazole monotherapy for patients with proven or probable invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). Second, it evaluates whether routine use of prophylactic or empiric antifungal agents against Candida species is advisable in critically ill, nonneutropenic, nontransplant patients at risk of invasive candidiasis (IC). By synthesizing available evidence using the GRADE approach, this guideline aims to support clinicians in optimizing therapeutic strategies and improving patient outcomes in these complex infections.
Key Recommendations:
Initial Combination Therapy vs. Monotherapy for IPA
- For patients with proven or probable IPA, the guideline makes a conditional recommendation, meaning the best choice isn’t entirely clear. Both initial combination therapy (mold-active triazole + echinocandin) and monotherapy (mold-active triazole alone) are considered reasonable options.
- Evidence stems primarily from studies in hematologic malignancy (HM) or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, with mixed findings in observational cohorts and a key randomized trial favoring combination therapy, particularly in a subgroup diagnosed by positive galactomannan assays.
- When critical illness or triazole resistance is a concern, combination therapy may be considered, but there is insufficient evidence to categorically endorse one approach over the other.
Prophylactic or Empiric Antifungal Therapy for Candida in Critically Ill Patients
- In nonneutropenic, nontransplant adult ICU patients at risk for IC, the guideline makes a conditional recommendation against routinely using prophylactic or empiric antifungal therapy. This means the benefits of withholding these treatments likely outweigh the risks, but there’s still some uncertainty.
- Low-quality evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials showed no significant mortality benefit in administering antifungals prophylactically or empirically compared with placebo.
- Although IC carries substantial morbidity and mortality, its overall incidence in this population remains low, and ongoing surveillance or targeted diagnostics may be preferable to universal antifungal administration.
Conclusion: The panel emphasizes that these recommendations should be applied with clinical judgment, especially in patients with severe disease, likely high fungal burden, or concerns for antifungal resistance. Combination therapy for IPA may be particularly relevant when critical illness or limited triazole efficacy is suspected. Meanwhile, prophylactic or empiric anti-Candida therapy in the broader ICU setting does not appear to substantially reduce mortality. Continued advances in rapid diagnostics, close monitoring of local resistance patterns, and new antifungal agents may further refine best practices. Future research should focus on validating these findings in diverse patient populations, exploring novel combination regimens, and establishing more precise risk assessments for IC in the ICU.
Reference: Epelbaum O, Marinelli T, Haydour Q, Pennington KM, Evans SE, Carmona EM, Husain S, Knox KS, Jarrett BJ, Azoulay E, Hope WW, and others. “Treatment of Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis and Preventive and Empirical Therapy for Invasive Candidiasis in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care Patients: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (2025). https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202410-2045ST
RCT: Assessing Procalcitonin-Based Antibiotic Management in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis
7 Jan, 2025 | 14:00h | UTCBackground: Optimal antibiotic duration for sepsis remains uncertain. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are thought to support shorter courses, but prior research was small-scale or at risk of bias. This multicenter, randomized trial (ADAPT-Sepsis) evaluated whether daily PCT- or CRP-guided protocols could reduce antibiotic use without increasing 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill adults with suspected sepsis.
Objective: To determine if daily biomarker-guided (PCT or CRP) strategies decrease total antibiotic days among critically ill adults while maintaining acceptable 28-day mortality, compared with standard care.
Methods: From 2018 to 2024 (with enrollment paused March–August 2020 due to COVID-19), 2760 adults (≥18 years) on intravenous antibiotics for suspected sepsis (acute organ dysfunction and presumed infection) and likely to continue antibiotics for at least 72 hours were randomized across 41 UK NHS ICUs within 24 hours of antibiotic initiation. They were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to (1) daily PCT-guided advice (n=918), (2) daily CRP-guided advice (n=924), or (3) standard care (n=918). Biomarker results were concealed; clinicians received automated daily prompts recommending continuation or discontinuation. The co-primary outcomes were (1) total antibiotic duration (randomization to day 28) and (2) 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary measures included antibiotic duration for the initial sepsis episode, 90-day mortality, readmissions, and length of stay.
Results: Among 2760 participants (mean age, 60.2 years; 60.3% men; ~50% with septic shock), over 96% provided 28-day data. Patients in the PCT-guided arm had a statistically significant mean reduction in total antibiotic duration vs standard care (9.8 vs 10.7 days; difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.19–1.58; p=0.01). The PCT strategy met the prespecified 5.4% noninferiority margin for 28-day mortality (20.9% vs 19.4%; absolute difference, 1.57; 95% CI, –2.18 to 5.32; p=0.02), implying noninferiority but not fully excluding a small risk of excess mortality. CRP-guided protocols did not shorten total antibiotic use (10.6 vs 10.7 days; p=0.79) and were inconclusive for noninferiority regarding mortality (21.1% vs 19.4%; difference, 1.69; 95% CI, –2.07 to 5.45; p=0.03). Notably, 90-day mortality also showed no significant differences. A post-trial commentary (PulmCCM) emphasized that some uncertainty remains with the 5.4% margin and warned that patient-level randomization could subtly discourage earlier antibiotic discontinuation in standard care, which received no explicit “stop” prompts.
Conclusions: In critically ill patients with suspected sepsis, a PCT-guided antibiotic discontinuation protocol shortened overall antibiotic use by nearly one day without exceeding the predefined noninferiority threshold for 28-day mortality. However, the chosen 5.4% margin allows for the possibility of clinically relevant harm. A CRP-guided protocol did not reduce total antibiotic use and showed inconclusive mortality findings.
Implications for Practice: Adopting PCT-based stewardship may modestly decrease antibiotic exposure without a clear short-term mortality penalty, potentially limiting antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should remain vigilant, recognizing the risk tolerance implied by the 5.4% margin. PCT results should complement, not replace, comprehensive clinical judgment.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the large sample size, multi-center design, blinded biomarker allocation, and distinct emphasis on both effectiveness and safety outcomes. Limitations include the acceptance of a 5.4% potential excess mortality as the noninferiority threshold, uncertainty about rare but significant harms, and the possibility of bias introduced by patient-level randomization. Generalizability to lower-resource settings may also be limited.
Future Research: Further randomized trials with lower noninferiority margins or cluster-level allocation are needed to better define the safety and efficacy of PCT-guided strategies for reducing antibiotic duration in sepsis. Additional investigations are needed for long-term patient-centered outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the role of alternative biomarkers or combined strategies in sepsis care.
Reference:
Dark P, Hossain A, McAuley DF, et al. Biomarker-Guided Antibiotic Duration for Hospitalized Patients With Suspected Sepsis: The ADAPT-Sepsis Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024; published online December 9. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.26458
PulmCCM Commentary: “Is procalcitonin ‘safe’ to guide antibiotic use in patients with sepsis? ADAPT-Sepsis tests the strategy in the U.K., with global ambitions.” Jan 02, 2025. https://www.pulmccm.org/p/is-procalcitonin-safe-to-guide-antibiotic
Joint ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA Guideline Recommends Shorter, All-Oral Regimens for Drug-Susceptible and Drug-Resistant TB
5 Jan, 2025 | 11:30h | UTCIntroduction: This summary outlines new clinical practice guidelines from the American Thoracic Society, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Respiratory Society, and Infectious Diseases Society of America on updated treatment regimens for tuberculosis (TB) in low-incidence settings. These recommendations build on recent clinical trials, World Health Organization (WHO) guidance, and were developed using the GRADE and GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology. The guidelines aim to shorten treatment duration, reduce pill burden, and improve patient outcomes for both drug-susceptible (DS) and drug-resistant (DR) TB, and they apply to settings where mycobacterial cultures, molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility tests, and radiographic studies are routinely available. A separate news release from CIDRAP highlights the significance of these shorter, all-oral regimens for adults and children. Directly observed therapy (DOT) remains the standard of care.
Key Recommendations:
Four-Month Regimen for DS-TB in Adults:
- For people aged 12 years or older with isoniazid- and rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB, a new four-month regimen of isoniazid, rifapentine, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide (2HPZM/2HPM) is conditionally recommended. This shortened course is based on a large, randomized trial (Study 31/A5349) demonstrating noninferior efficacy compared to the standard six-month regimen (84.6% vs 85.4% cure, respectively), no increase in adverse events, and potential benefits in completion rates. Exclusions include TB meningitis and other complicated forms of extrapulmonary TB, and clinicians should obtain rapid fluoroquinolone susceptibility tests before initiating this regimen.
Four-Month Regimen for DS-TB in Children:
- For children and adolescents aged 3 months to 16 years with nonsevere, drug-susceptible pulmonary TB, a four-month regimen of isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol for the initial phase, followed by isoniazid and rifampin, is strongly recommended. Evidence from the SHINE trial showed high success (97.1% vs 96.9%) and similar safety with the shorter course compared to the 6-month regimen. Nonsevere TB generally excludes extensive cavitary disease, advanced extrapulmonary TB, or complicated forms. Close clinical and radiographic follow-up is important to confirm effective cure.
Six-Month BPaL Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant, Fluoroquinolone-Resistant or Intolerant TB:
- For rifampin-resistant (RR) pulmonary TB with resistance or patient intolerance to fluoroquinolones in adolescents aged 14 and older and adults, a six-month all-oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL) regimen is strongly recommended, replacing much longer regimens that often included injectables. Clinical trials (Nix-TB, ZeNix) demonstrated higher cure rates and lower toxicity with this regimen compared to longer regimens, though vigilance is needed for linezolid-related adverse events (e.g., neuropathy, myelosuppression). Baseline and monthly lab and ECG checks are advised.
Six-Month BPaLM Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant, Fluoroquinolone-Susceptible TB:
- For RR pulmonary TB that remains fluoroquinolone-susceptible in adolescents aged 14 and older and adults, a six-month bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) regimen is strongly recommended over traditional 15-month or longer regimens in patients with MDR/RR-TB. Data from the TB-PRACTECAL trial showed high success rates and fewer serious adverse events. BPaLM is the first-line recommendation for this group. Close monitoring of cardiac status (QTc prolongation) and blood counts is advised.
Both BPaL and BPaLM regimens require detailed drug susceptibility testing and cautious management of potential drug–drug interactions, particularly for patients with comorbidities or HIV infection. Of note, the certainty of evidence for the outcomes in the DR-TB trials was rated as very low, due to multiple factors including bias, small event numbers, lack of blinding, and inconsistent outcomes.
Conclusion: These new recommendations markedly shorten TB treatment courses for adults and children in low-incidence settings with access to appropriate diagnostic tools, while avoiding injectables and reducing serious toxicities. By replacing older, more complex regimens with all-oral, shorter-duration therapy, and using DOT as the standard of care, the guidelines aim to improve adherence, lessen the burden on healthcare systems, and enhance patient quality of life. Ongoing research will further refine dosing, safety for special populations (e.g., pregnant individuals), and the role of advanced drug susceptibility testing.
Reference:
Jussi J. Saukkonen, Raquel Duarte, Sonal S. Munsiff, et al. “Updates on the Treatment of Drug-Susceptible and Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: An Official ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202410-2096ST
News release commentary: “New guidelines expand recommendations for shorter, all-oral TB treatments” (CIDRAP). https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/tuberculosis/new-guidelines-expand-recommendations-shorter-all-oral-tb-treatments
Meta-analysis: Therapeutic-Dose Heparin Improves 28-Day Mortality in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients
6 Jan, 2025 | 12:00h | UTCBackground: High rates of thrombotic events and systemic inflammation among COVID-19 hospitalized patients led researchers to test whether intensified anticoagulation strategies could reduce morbidity and mortality. Previous trials yielded conflicting results, partly due to varying doses of anticoagulants—prophylactic, intermediate, or therapeutic—and heterogeneous patient severity. This comprehensive investigation, conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, aimed to clarify the benefits and risks of escalated anticoagulation dosing in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
Objective: To estimate whether higher-dose anticoagulation (therapeutic or intermediate) improves 28-day all-cause mortality compared with lower-dose anticoagulation (prophylactic or intermediate), and to evaluate secondary outcomes, including progression to mechanical ventilation, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding.
Methods: This prospective meta-analysis included randomized trials comparing higher- versus lower-dose anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Investigators collected trial-level summary data, focusing primarily on heparins. Dosing categories—therapeutic, intermediate, and prophylactic—were predefined. The main outcome was 28-day mortality; secondary outcomes included progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), venous or arterial thrombotic events, and major hemorrhage. Data were analyzed using a fixed-effects model, with odds ratios (ORs) pooled across trials.
Results: Overall, 22 trials (over 11 000 total participants) contributed data, primarily evaluating heparins. For therapeutic versus prophylactic-dose heparin, 28-day mortality was significantly reduced (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64–0.93), especially among patients requiring low-flow oxygen or no supplemental oxygen. Therapeutic dose reduced thromboembolic events (OR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.64) but increased major bleeding (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19-3.05) compared to prophylactic dose. In contrast, when therapeutic was compared to intermediate-dose heparin, the summary OR for 28-day mortality was 1.21 (CI, 0.93–1.58), suggesting a potential trend toward higher mortality that did not reach statistical significance. Intermediate versus prophylactic-dose comparisons revealed no conclusive mortality difference (OR, 0.95; CI, 0.76–1.19). Across all higher-dose arms, thromboembolic events decreased, while the risk of major bleeding increased, underscoring the delicate risk–benefit balance. Subgroup analyses by respiratory support level, D-dimer, and baseline severity did not indicate strong interaction effects, although sample sizes were limited in more severe illness subgroups.
Conclusions: Therapeutic-dose heparin reduces 28-day mortality relative to prophylactic-dose in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, mainly among those not requiring invasive ventilation. Mortality was similar or potentially worse when therapeutic was compared to intermediate-dose. Clinicians must weigh the lower rate of thrombotic complications against the higher bleeding risk, particularly in critically ill patients.
Implications for Practice: Although higher anticoagulant dosing appears beneficial for certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients, especially those with mild to moderate respiratory compromise, individualized assessment remains key. Current guidelines broadly recommend prophylactic dosing for the critically ill and suggest considering higher doses only in carefully selected patients. Evolving viral variants and changes in standard of care further complicate direct application of these findings to present-day hospital settings.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include prospective planning, collaboration with multiple trials, and a large pooled sample. Limitations encompass heterogeneity in dose definitions, partial reliance on published data where individual-level parameters could not be fully harmonized, and potential temporal changes in COVID-19 clinical profiles. Moreover, bleeding severity beyond major hemorrhage was not universally reported, limiting robust safety assessments.
Future Research: Further studies should focus on individualized anticoagulant strategies that consider biomarkers (for example, D-dimer) and evolving treatment protocols. Investigations examining optimal timing, duration, and post-discharge management will help refine anticoagulation practices.
Reference:
The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Anticoagulation Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Prospective Meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00800
Shappell CN, Anesi GL. Anticoagulation for COVID-19: Seeking Clarity and Finding Yet More Gray. Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03244
Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Outbreak Among US Farm Exposures: Clinical Findings and Early Treatment Outcomes
2 Jan, 2025 | 17:01h | UTCBackground: Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) has reemerged in the United States with documented infections in poultry and dairy cows since 2021. From March through October 2024, 46 human cases were identified, most of whom were workers engaged in poultry depopulation or dairy-farm activities where infected or presumably infected animals were present.
Objective: To characterize the clinical presentations, exposure settings, and outcomes of individuals with laboratory-confirmed H5N1 infection and to investigate potential routes of transmission, disease severity, and risk to public health.
Methods: Using a standardized case-report form, data were collected on exposure history, symptom onset, and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Respiratory and conjunctival swabs from symptomatic persons underwent real-time RT-PCR for H5 subtyping at both state laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Genetic sequencing was performed on available samples. Investigators also monitored close household contacts to evaluate the risk of secondary transmission. An additional hospitalized patient with no identifiable exposure source was detected through routine influenza surveillance.
Results: Of the 46 adult case patients, 20 were exposed to infected poultry, 25 to infected or presumably infected dairy cows, and 1 had unknown exposure. Among the 45 occupationally exposed patients, illness was mild, with no hospitalizations or deaths. Conjunctivitis was present in 93% of cases; 49% reported fever, and 36% had respiratory symptoms. Fifteen patients had only conjunctivitis, highlighting the utility of conjunctival specimens for detection. Early antiviral therapy with oseltamivir was common, initiated at a median of two days after symptom onset. No additional cases were found among 97 closely monitored household contacts, indicating no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission. Genetic analyses revealed clade 2.3.4.4b viruses, with some genotypic differences between poultry-related (D1.1 genotype) and cow-related (B3.13 genotype) infections.
Conclusions: In this observational study, H5N1 infections in US adults were generally mild, self-limited, and predominantly associated with conjunctivitis. The absence of critical illness or fatalities contrasts with historical reports of more severe H5N1 disease. Although no ongoing person-to-person transmission was documented, continued vigilance is warranted, given the virus’s potential for rapid adaptation.
Implications for Practice: Occupational health measures, such as consistent PPE use (especially eye protection), timely surveillance, and prompt antiviral treatment, may reduce the impact of H5N1 infections among exposed workers. Clinicians should consider conjunctival sampling for symptomatic patients with relevant animal contact. Policy efforts should focus on improving biosecurity practices in both poultry and dairy settings.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include systematic surveillance, robust laboratory testing of both respiratory and conjunctival specimens, and early antiviral administration. Limitations involve possible underreporting of mild or asymptomatic cases, incomplete details on exposure duration, and limited data on specific routes of cow-to-human transmission.
Future Research: Further studies should explore viral evolution in cows, the significance of raw milk as a transmission vehicle, and the potential for more severe infections, as highlighted by sporadic reports of severe H5N1 illness worldwide.
Reference: Garg S, Reinhart K, Couture A, Kniss K, Davis CT, Kirby MK, Murray EL, et al. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus Infections in Humans. New England Journal of Medicine. Published December 31, 2024. Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2414610
- Editorial: Ison MG, Marrazzo J. The Emerging Threat of H5N1 to Human Health. New England Journal of Medicine. Published December 31, 2024. Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2416323
RCT: Levofloxacin for the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Vietnam
24 Dec, 2024 | 12:53h | UTCBackground:
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis pose significant global health challenges. Preventing active disease among contacts exposed to resistant strains is critical, yet limited evidence exists on targeted chemopreventive interventions. This study investigated whether a six-month course of daily levofloxacin could reduce the incidence of bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis among household contacts of individuals with confirmed MDR or rifampin-resistant tuberculosis in Vietnam.
Objective:
To assess if levofloxacin prophylaxis decreases the 30-month incidence of active tuberculosis among high-risk contacts. Primary endpoints included bacteriologically confirmed disease, and secondary outcomes encompassed adverse events, mortality, and development of fluoroquinolone-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Methods:
Researchers conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Eligible participants were household contacts of persons who had started MDR tuberculosis treatment within the previous three months, had a positive tuberculin skin test or immunosuppressive condition, and showed no clinical or radiographic signs of active disease. Enrolled individuals received weight-based oral levofloxacin (up to 750 mg/day) or an identical placebo for 180 days. Monthly visits supported adherence and monitored adverse events. Participants underwent follow-up visits every six months until 30 months for tuberculosis screening, chest radiography, and sputum testing where indicated.
Results:
Of 2041 randomized contacts, 1995 (97.7%) completed 30 months of follow-up or reached a primary endpoint. Confirmed tuberculosis was diagnosed in 6 participants (0.6%) in the levofloxacin group and 11 (1.1%) in the placebo group (incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.19–1.62), a difference that did not achieve statistical significance. Severe (grade 3 or 4) adverse events were infrequent in both groups, while mild adverse events were more common with levofloxacin (31.9% vs. 13.0%). Acquired fluoroquinolone resistance was not detected.
Conclusions:
Daily levofloxacin for six months showed a numerically lower incidence of tuberculosis than placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant due to lower-than-expected case counts. Treatment was generally well tolerated; however, higher discontinuation rates occurred among levofloxacin recipients, often due to mild musculoskeletal complaints. Further studies may clarify the role of fluoroquinolone-based regimens in preventing MDR tuberculosis across diverse epidemiologic contexts.
Implications for Practice:
These findings suggest that levofloxacin prophylaxis could benefit contacts at high risk of MDR tuberculosis, albeit with caution regarding adherence challenges and low-grade side effects. Broader implementation would require diligent screening, consideration of background fluoroquinolone resistance, and strategies to manage mild adverse events that could undermine treatment completion.
Study Strengths and Limitations:
Strengths include a rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled design, nearly complete follow-up, and thorough exclusion of prevalent tuberculosis at baseline. Limitations involve an unexpectedly low incidence of confirmed disease, limiting statistical power, and a study population with low HIV prevalence, which may reduce generalizability.
Future Research:
Further research is necessary to confirm these findings in diverse settings, explore alternative or shorter regimens (including newer agents like delamanid), and investigate optimal approaches for patients with fluoroquinolone-resistant strains. The long-term impact on transmission dynamics and microbiome shifts also warrants additional investigation.
RCT: Early Restrictive vs Liberal Oxygen Strategy in Severe Trauma – No Significant Outcome Difference
22 Dec, 2024 | 17:21h | UTCBackground: The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines recommend providing supplemental oxygen to severely injured patients in the early phase after trauma, although the evidence base is limited. Observational research suggests that liberal oxygen administration may raise the risk of death and respiratory complications. Therefore, the TRAUMOX2 trial examined whether an 8-hour restrictive oxygen strategy (targeting an SpO₂ of 94%) could improve outcomes compared with a liberal strategy (12–15 L/min or FiO₂ 0.6–1.0) initiated prehospital or upon trauma center admission.
Objective: To determine whether an early restrictive oxygen approach, as compared with a liberal approach, reduces the composite outcome of death and/or major respiratory complications (pneumonia or ARDS) within 30 days in severely injured adults.
Methods: This investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with blunt or penetrating trauma requiring full trauma team activation and anticipated hospital stay of at least 24 hours. Randomization occurred either prehospital or upon trauma center arrival in a 1:1 ratio to restrictive (lowest dose of oxygen to maintain SpO₂ at 94%) versus liberal therapy (12–15 L/min via nonrebreather mask or FiO₂ 0.6–1.0). The intervention lasted 8 hours, with all other management per standard care. The primary outcome—death or major respiratory complications (pneumonia per CDC criteria or ARDS per the Berlin definition)—was evaluated by blinded assessors within 30 days. Statistical analyses employed logistic regression, adjusted for stratification variables.
Results: Among 1979 randomized patients, 1508 completed the study (median age, 50 years; Injury Severity Score [ISS], 14). The composite primary outcome occurred in 16.1% (118/733) of restrictive-group patients and 16.7% (121/724) of liberal-group patients (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.75–1.37; p=0.94). Mortality alone (8.6% vs 7.3%) and major respiratory complications alone (8.9% vs 10.8%) showed no significant differences between groups. Adverse and serious adverse events were similar, except atelectasis was less frequent in the restrictive group (27.6% vs 34.7%).
Conclusions: In severely injured trauma patients, an 8-hour restrictive oxygen strategy did not significantly reduce death or major respiratory complications compared with a liberal strategy. Both approaches produced similar 30-day outcomes. Nevertheless, restricting oxygen may limit atelectasis and could be a reasonable alternative to giving high-flow oxygen to all trauma patients.
Implications for Practice: Clinicians may choose to target approximately 94% SpO₂ in the early trauma phase without compromising major outcomes. This approach potentially avoids the risks of hyperoxia, though no definitive survival benefit was identified. Pragmatic implementation of a conservative oxygen strategy seems feasible in diverse prehospital and hospital settings.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Notable strengths include multicenter design, randomized enrollment in prehospital and in-hospital settings, and blinded outcome assessment. Limitations include postrandomization exclusions of patients with minor injuries, a relatively short intervention period (8 hours), and an overall open-label design. These factors, along with lower-than-expected event rates, may have limited the power to detect differences in mortality. Commentary from https://bit.ly/bottomline_traumox2 also highlights that the median ISS of 14 indicates moderate rather than extremely severe trauma, possibly contributing to the modest event rates.
Future Research: Large-scale studies with extended intervention durations and targeted subgroups (e.g., severe traumatic brain injury) could clarify optimal oxygen thresholds in trauma care. Ongoing trials with larger sample sizes may better capture smaller but clinically meaningful differences in mortality or complications.
Cohort Study: Metformin Linked to Fewer Asthma Attacks in Patients with Asthma and Type 2 Diabetes
24 Nov, 2024 | 20:36h | UTCBackground: Patients with asthma frequently have comorbid obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D), conditions associated with an increased risk of asthma attacks. Experimental studies suggest that metformin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) can reduce airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness. However, epidemiological evidence supporting these effects is limited.
Objective: To evaluate the association between metformin use, with or without add-on antidiabetic medications, and the risk of asthma attacks in patients with asthma and T2D.
Methods: This study utilized data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum from 2004 to 2020, employing two analytical approaches: a self-controlled case series (SCCS) of 4,278 new metformin users with asthma who experienced asthma attacks, and a population-based cohort study using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) including 8,424 patients. The primary exposure was initiation of metformin; secondary exposures included add-on antidiabetic medications. The primary outcome was the first asthma exacerbation—defined as a short course of oral corticosteroids, unscheduled asthma-related hospital attendance, or death—during 12 months of follow-up.
Results: Metformin use was associated with a significant reduction in asthma attacks in both analyses. In the SCCS, metformin initiation was linked to a 32% reduction in risk (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62-0.75). In the IPTW cohort, metformin use was associated with a 24% reduction (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85). Addition of GLP-1RAs led to a further reduction in asthma attacks (IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73). Associations were consistent regardless of glycemic control, body mass index, asthma severity, or blood eosinophil counts.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that metformin use is associated with a lower rate of asthma attacks among patients with asthma and T2D, with additional benefits when GLP-1RAs are added. These effects appear independent of glycemic control or weight loss and occur across different asthma phenotypes.
Implications for Practice: These results indicate potential for repurposing metformin as an adjunct therapy to reduce asthma attacks in patients with asthma and T2D. However, as observational studies cannot establish causality, clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously. The higher cost and side-effect profile of GLP-1RAs warrant careful consideration before widespread adoption.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, nationally representative sample and the use of two distinct analytical methods to enhance robustness. Limitations involve the observational design, which cannot confirm causality, and potential residual confounding factors such as medication adherence and dosage. Additionally, possible misclassification of asthma diagnosis and lack of data on changes in weight may affect the findings.
Future Research: Randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings and elucidate the mechanisms by which metformin and GLP-1RAs may reduce asthma attacks. Further studies should explore the benefits of early pharmacological intervention with antidiabetic medications in patients with asthma and metabolic dysfunction.
Review: Lung Transplantation
16 Nov, 2024 | 13:33h | UTCIntroduction: Lung transplantation has progressed from experimental to standard therapy for life-threatening lung diseases, offering improved survival and quality of life. Challenges include primary graft dysfunction, chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), infections, and long-term immunosuppression effects. This review highlights current practices, developments, and opportunities to enhance this transformative therapy.
Key Recommendations
- Candidate Selection: Selection criteria have shifted from strict contraindications to a holistic approach emphasizing physiologic age, frailty, and recoverability. Early referral and multidisciplinary assessment are recommended to address barriers and optimize outcomes.
- Donor-Lung Utilization: Extended-criteria donors, including older donors and those with smoking histories, are increasingly used. Ex vivo lung perfusion allows detailed lung assessment and reconditioning, while antiviral therapies enable transplantation of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors.
- Lung Allocation: Urgency-weighted scores prioritize factors like medical urgency and post-transplant survival. Recent updates include biologic disadvantages, patient access, and logistical efficiency to improve fairness and outcomes.
- Surgical Techniques: Bilateral sequential lung transplantation is standard, with ECMO replacing cardiopulmonary bypass in many cases. Surgical approaches are tailored to individual needs, with options like volume reduction or lobectomy for size mismatches.
- Postoperative Management: Primary graft dysfunction affects up to 25% of recipients and is a major early complication. Preventive strategies, ECMO support, and infection management are critical. Attention to airway complications and acute kidney injury further improves recovery.
- Immunosuppression: Maintenance therapy typically includes a calcineurin inhibitor, glucocorticoid, and cell-cycle inhibitor. Induction therapy is individualized. Ongoing studies are exploring adjunct therapies like mTOR inhibitors and inhaled immunosuppressants to prevent CLAD.
- Management of ALAD and CLAD: Early detection and treatment of acute lung allograft dysfunction are essential. CLAD, affecting half of recipients within 5 years, remains a major challenge. Current therapies slow progression, but further research is needed for targeted prevention and treatment.
- Infections: Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus, fungal pathogens, and community-acquired viruses is essential to minimize complications and reduce CLAD risk.
- Cancer Risk: Post-transplant cancer risk is elevated due to immunosuppression. Lung cancer and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease are the most common malignancies, emphasizing the need for routine surveillance and early intervention.
- Long-Term Outcomes: Median survival remains limited at 6.7 years. Efforts focus on improving long-term outcomes by balancing graft function maintenance with minimizing adverse effects of immunosuppression. Collaborative research aims to refine diagnostics, personalize therapies, and address CLAD mechanisms.
Conclusion: Enhanced donor utilization, tailored candidate selection, refined perioperative care, and robust long-term monitoring are pivotal to advancing lung transplantation. Ongoing research and collaboration are critical to overcoming challenges like CLAD, improving survival, and enhancing patient quality of life.
RCT: ICS-Formoterol and ICS-SABA Reduce Severe Asthma Exacerbations Compared With SABA Alone
28 Oct, 2024 | 18:12h | UTCBackground: Asthma affects millions worldwide and is managed using inhaled relievers to alleviate acute symptoms. While short-acting β agonists (SABA) are commonly used, combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with SABA or formoterol may enhance outcomes. Recent guidelines recommend ICS-formoterol as the preferred reliever, but the optimal choice remains uncertain, especially following the recent FDA approval of ICS-SABA.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of SABA alone, ICS-SABA, and ICS-formoterol as reliever therapies in asthma.
Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis included 27 randomized controlled trials involving 50,496 adult and pediatric asthma patients. Trials compared SABA alone, ICS-SABA, and ICS-formoterol as reliever therapies, ensuring similar maintenance treatments across groups. Outcomes assessed were severe asthma exacerbations, asthma symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 [ACQ-5]), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]), adverse events, and mortality.
Results: Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers significantly reduced severe exacerbations:
- ICS-formoterol: Risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI, 0.60–0.72); risk difference (RD) –10.3% (95% CI, –11.8% to –8.3%).
- ICS-SABA: RR 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73–0.95); RD –4.7% (95% CI, –8.0% to –1.5%).
Compared with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol further reduced severe exacerbations (RR 0.78; RD –5.5%). Both ICS-containing relievers modestly improved asthma symptom control compared with SABA alone. No increase in adverse events was observed with either ICS-containing therapy.
Conclusions: Both ICS-formoterol and ICS-SABA as reliever therapies reduce severe asthma exacerbations and improve symptom control compared with SABA alone, without increasing adverse events. ICS-formoterol may offer additional benefits over ICS-SABA in reducing exacerbations.
Implications for Practice: These findings support the use of ICS-containing reliever therapies over SABA alone in asthma management to reduce severe exacerbations and improve control. ICS-formoterol may be preferred when a greater reduction in exacerbations is desired.
Study Strengths and Limitations: High-certainty evidence strengthens these conclusions, but the lack of direct comparisons between ICS-formoterol and ICS-SABA and limited pediatric data are notable limitations.
Future Research: Direct head-to-head trials comparing ICS-formoterol and ICS-SABA, particularly in pediatric populations, are needed to confirm these findings.
ATS Guideline: Evaluation and Management of Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome
12 Oct, 2024 | 23:04h | UTCIntroduction: Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome (OHS) is a serious condition characterized by obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²), sleep-disordered breathing, and daytime hypercapnia (PaCO₂ ≥45 mm Hg), after excluding other causes of hypoventilation. Recognizing the need for standardized evaluation and management, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) has developed comprehensive guidelines. These aim to improve early recognition, optimize treatment strategies, and reduce variability in clinical practice to enhance patient outcomes.
Key Recommendations:
- Screening for OHS:
- Serum Bicarbonate Measurement: For patients with low to moderate probability of OHS (<20%), a serum bicarbonate level can guide the need for arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. A bicarbonate level <27 mmol/L suggests that measuring PaCO₂ may be unnecessary, while levels ≥27 mmol/L indicate that ABG measurement is warranted. (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
- PaCO₂ Measurement: In patients with a high pretest probability of OHS, direct measurement of PaCO₂ is recommended over relying on serum bicarbonate or oxygen saturation levels. (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
- Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Therapy:
- Use of PAP: Stable ambulatory patients diagnosed with OHS should be treated with PAP during sleep to improve gas exchange and alleviate symptoms. (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
- Choice of Modality: For patients with OHS and coexisting severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (apnea–hypopnea index ≥30 events/hour), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is suggested as the first-line treatment over noninvasive ventilation (NIV). (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
- Hospitalized Patients:
- Discharge Planning: Patients hospitalized with respiratory failure suspected of having OHS should be discharged with NIV therapy until outpatient diagnostic evaluations and PAP titration can be completed, ideally within 2–3 months. (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
- Weight Loss Interventions:
- Significant Weight Reduction: Patients with OHS are advised to engage in weight-loss interventions aiming for a sustained loss of 25–30% of actual body weight to resolve hypoventilation. Bariatric surgery may be considered to achieve this goal when appropriate. (Quality of evidence: very low; Recommendation: conditional)
Conclusion: Implementing these guidelines is expected to enhance the early detection and standardized management of OHS. By following these recommendations, healthcare providers can improve patient care, reduce morbidity and mortality associated with OHS, and promote better clinical outcomes.
RCT: Telehealth-Delivered Early Palliative Care Equivalent to In-Person Care in Advanced Lung Cancer
26 Sep, 2024 | 15:06h | UTCBackground: Patients with advanced lung cancer often face a high symptom burden and decreased quality of life (QOL), but access to early palliative care, which can improve these outcomes, remains limited. While telehealth has become increasingly utilized due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear whether virtual palliative care is as effective as in-person care.
Objective: To compare the effect of early palliative care delivered via secure video vs in-person visits on the quality of life of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods: This multisite, randomized comparative effectiveness trial enrolled 1250 adults with advanced NSCLC from 22 cancer centers in the US between June 2018 and May 2023. Participants were randomized to receive either early palliative care via video visits or in person every four weeks. The primary outcome was QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included caregiver participation in palliative care visits and patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, coping, and prognostic understanding.
Results: By week 24, patients in both groups reported equivalent QOL scores, with the video visit group scoring a mean of 99.7 compared to 97.7 in the in-person group (difference of 2.0 points, 90% CI, 0.1-3.9; P = .04 for equivalence). Both groups experienced similar improvements in QOL from baseline (mean increase of 8.4 points for video visits and 6.9 points for in-person care). Caregiver participation in palliative care visits was lower in the video visit group (36.6% vs 49.7%; P < .001). No significant differences were found between the groups in caregiver QOL, patient or caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or coping strategies.
Conclusions: Early palliative care delivered via telehealth was equivalent to in-person visits in improving QOL for patients with advanced NSCLC. This underscores the potential of telehealth to increase access to essential palliative care services for this population without compromising care quality.
Implications for Practice: Telehealth can provide a feasible alternative to in-person palliative care, especially for patients with advanced lung cancer who face barriers to in-person visits, such as transportation challenges. However, strategies to enhance caregiver involvement in virtual visits may need to be developed.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the large, multisite randomized design and the use of validated outcome measures. Limitations involve the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact, which caused some intervention contamination due to unavoidable video visits in the in-person group. Additionally, caregiver participation was lower than expected, potentially limiting the generalizability of results regarding caregiver outcomes.
Future Research: Further studies should explore the long-term impact of telehealth on palliative care outcomes and investigate ways to enhance caregiver involvement in virtual care.
Summary: Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants
19 Sep, 2024 | 21:12h | UTCDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs)—including apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran—are increasingly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for treating venous thromboembolism. Effective perioperative management of DOACs is essential to minimize bleeding and thromboembolic risks during surgical and nonsurgical procedures. Below are practical recommendations focused on the perioperative management of patients taking DOACs, based on a recent JAMA review article.
Elective Surgical or Nonsurgical Procedures
Classify Bleeding Risk of Procedures:
- Minimal Risk:
- Minor dental procedures (e.g., cleaning, extractions)
- Minor dermatologic procedures (e.g., skin lesion removal)
- Cataract surgery
- Low to Moderate Risk:
- Endoscopic procedures without high-risk interventions
- Cholecystectomy
- Inguinal hernia repair
- High Risk:
- Major surgery (e.g., cancer surgery, joint replacement)
- Procedures involving neuraxial anesthesia
- Endoscopic procedures with high-risk interventions (e.g., large polyp removal)
DOAC Management Strategies:
- Minimal Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Option 1: Continue DOACs without interruption.
- Option 2: For added safety, withhold the morning dose on the day of the procedure (especially for twice-daily DOACs like apixaban and dabigatran).
- Low to Moderate Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Preoperative:
- Discontinue DOACs 1 day before the procedure.
- This allows approximately 2 half-lives for drug clearance.
- Postoperative:
- Resume DOACs 1 day after the procedure, ensuring adequate hemostasis.
- Preoperative:
- High Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Preoperative:
- Discontinue DOACs 2 days before the procedure.
- This allows approximately 4-5 half-lives for drug clearance.
- Postoperative:
- Resume DOACs 2-3 days after the procedure, based on bleeding risk and hemostasis.
- Preoperative:
Evidence Supporting These Strategies:
- The PAUSE study demonstrated that standardized interruption protocols without heparin bridging result in low rates of:
- Thromboembolism: 0.2%–0.4%
- Major Bleeding: 1%–2%
Postoperative DOAC Resumption:
- Assess surgical-site hemostasis before resuming DOACs.
- Delay resumption if there is ongoing bleeding or concerns about hemostasis.
- For high bleeding risk procedures, consider a longer delay (2–3 days).
Perioperative Heparin Bridging:
- Not recommended for patients on DOACs.
- Bridging increases bleeding risk without reducing thromboembolism.
- DOACs have rapid offset and onset, making bridging unnecessary.
Special Considerations
Patients with Impaired Renal Function:
- For CrCl 30–50 mL/min:
- Dabigatran: Extend preoperative discontinuation by an additional day.
- For CrCl <30 mL/min:
- Dabigatran is contraindicated.
- For other DOACs, consider extending discontinuation to 3–4 days before surgery.
Patients Undergoing Neuraxial Anesthesia:
- Discontinue DOACs for 3 days (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) or 4 days (dabigatran) before the procedure.
- Minimizes risk of spinal or epidural hematoma.
Dental Procedures:
- Generally safe to continue DOACs.
- For added safety:
- Omit or delay the dose on the day of the procedure.
- Employ local hemostatic measures (e.g., tranexamic acid mouthwash).
Endoscopic Procedures:
- Low-risk procedures (e.g., diagnostic endoscopy without biopsy):
- Follow standard DOAC interruption for low to moderate bleeding risk.
- High-risk procedures (e.g., polypectomy of large polyps):
- Extend DOAC discontinuation by an additional day pre- and post-procedure.
Patients Unable to Resume Oral Medications Postoperatively:
- Use prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) until oral intake is possible.
- Avoid therapeutic-dose LMWH due to bleeding risk.
Emergent, Urgent, or Semiurgent Procedures
Risks:
- Higher bleeding risk: Up to 23%
- Thromboembolism risk: Up to 11%
Management Strategies:
- Assess Time Since Last DOAC Dose:
- If within 48 hours, consider that significant anticoagulant effect may persist.
- Laboratory Testing (if available):
- DOAC Level Testing:
- ≥50 ng/mL: Consider using reversal agents.
- <50 ng/mL: May proceed without reversal agents.
- DOAC Level Testing:
- Use of Reversal Agents:
- For Dabigatran:
- Idarucizumab (5 g IV)
- For Factor Xa Inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban):
- Andexanet alfa (dosing based on last dose timing and amount)
- Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (PCCs): If andexanet alfa is unavailable or contraindicated.
- For Dabigatran:
- Proceeding Without Testing:
- If testing is unavailable and last DOAC dose was within 48 hours, consider reversal agents.
- If >48 hours since last dose, may proceed without reversal.
Considerations:
- Reversal agents are expensive and may carry thrombotic risks.
- Use should be judicious, weighing risks and benefits.
- Consult hematology or thrombosis experts when possible.
Key Takeaways
- Elective Procedures:
- Utilize standardized protocols based on procedural bleeding risk.
- Routine preoperative DOAC level testing is unnecessary.
- Avoid heparin bridging.
- Emergent/Urgent Procedures:
- Reversal agents may be appropriate when significant DOAC levels are present.
- Decision to use reversal agents should consider bleeding risk, time since last dose, and availability of DOAC level testing.
- Patient Communication:
- Ensure patients understand the plan for DOAC interruption and resumption.
- Provide clear instructions regarding timing and dosing.
- Interdisciplinary Coordination:
- Collaborate with surgical teams, anesthesiologists, and pharmacists.
- Use electronic medical records and clinical decision support tools to enhance communication.
Conclusion
By applying standardized perioperative management protocols, clinicians can effectively balance the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism in patients taking DOACs who require surgical or nonsurgical procedures. These strategies simplify decision-making, avoid unnecessary interventions like heparin bridging, and promote patient safety.
Summary: Community-Acquired Pneumonia
19 Sep, 2024 | 17:21h | UTCIntroduction
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, accounting for approximately 1.4 million emergency department visits, 740,000 hospitalizations, and 41,000 deaths annually in the United States. Effective management of CAP requires prompt and accurate diagnosis, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and consideration of adjunctive treatments. This summary highlights key practice points from a review article in JAMA related to the diagnosis and treatment of CAP for medical professionals.
Diagnosis of CAP
Clinical Presentation
- Signs and Symptoms: Suspect CAP in patients presenting with two or more of the following:
- Fever (>38 °C) or hypothermia (≤36 °C)
- Leukocytosis (>10,000/μL) or leukopenia (<4,000/μL)
- New or increased cough
- Dyspnea
Radiographic Confirmation
- Chest Imaging: Obtain a chest radiograph for all patients with suspected CAP to identify air space opacities or infiltrates.
- Chest CT: Consider if the chest radiograph is inconclusive but clinical suspicion remains high.
- Differential Diagnosis: Rule out other causes of symptoms and radiographic findings, such as pulmonary embolism, heart failure, or malignancy.
Microbiological Testing
- Viral Testing:
- SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza: Test all patients for COVID-19 and influenza during periods of community transmission, as results influence treatment decisions and infection control measures.
- Bacterial Testing:
- Indications: Reserve sputum and blood cultures for patients with severe CAP or risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
- Risk Factors:
- Previous infection or colonization with MRSA or P. aeruginosa.
- Hospitalization with parenteral antibiotics within the past 90 days.
Treatment of CAP
Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy
- Hospitalized Patients without Risk Factors for Resistant Bacteria:
- First-Line Therapy: β-lactam plus macrolide combination.
- Example: Ceftriaxone (1-2 g IV daily) plus azithromycin (500 mg IV or orally daily).
- Alternative: Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy (e.g., levofloxacin) if β-lactam/macrolide therapy is contraindicated.
- First-Line Therapy: β-lactam plus macrolide combination.
- Patients with Severe CAP:
- Similar to non-severe CAP but ensure coverage for atypical pathogens.
- Consider Corticosteroids: Early administration (within 24 hours) of systemic corticosteroids may reduce mortality.
- Outpatients without Comorbidities:
- First-Line Therapy: Amoxicillin (1 g orally three times daily) or doxycycline (100 mg orally twice daily).
- Outpatients with Comorbidities:
- Combination Therapy: Amoxicillin/clavulanate (500 mg/125 mg orally three times daily) plus azithromycin (500 mg on day 1, then 250 mg daily).
Duration of Therapy
- Minimum Duration: Treat for a minimum of 3 days if the patient achieves clinical stability (normal vital signs) within 72 hours.
- Extended Duration: Extend to 5 days or more if the patient does not meet stability criteria by day 3 or has complications.
- Transition to Oral Therapy: Switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics when the patient can tolerate oral intake.
Antimicrobial Stewardship
- Avoid Unnecessary Antibiotics: Do not initiate antibiotics for confirmed viral CAP without evidence of bacterial coinfection.
- De-escalation: Narrow antibiotic coverage based on culture results and clinical improvement.
- Monitor for Adverse Effects: Be vigilant for antibiotic-associated complications, such as Clostridioides difficile infection.
Adjunctive Therapies
- Corticosteroids:
- Severe CAP: Administer systemic corticosteroids (e.g., hydrocortisone 200 mg/day) within 24 hours of diagnosis to reduce mortality and complications.
- Non-severe CAP: Routine use is not recommended due to lack of benefit and potential harm.
Secondary Prevention
- Vaccinations:
- Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine: Recommend for eligible patients to prevent future pneumococcal infections.
- Influenza Vaccine: Annual vaccination to reduce the risk of influenza-associated pneumonia.
- COVID-19 and RSV Vaccines: Encourage vaccination per current guidelines.
- Lifestyle Modifications:
- Smoking Cessation: Strongly advise quitting smoking to reduce the risk of CAP and improve respiratory health.
- Alcohol Moderation: Counsel patients on reducing excessive alcohol intake.
- Management of Comorbidities:
- Optimize treatment for chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, and diabetes.
Key Practice Points
- Diagnostic Evaluation:
- Use a combination of clinical signs, symptoms, and radiographic findings to diagnose CAP.
- Test all patients for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza during times of community prevalence.
- Reserve extensive pathogen testing for severe cases or those at risk for resistant organisms.
- Antimicrobial Therapy:
- Initiate empirical antibiotics promptly based on disease severity and risk factors.
- Prefer β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy for most hospitalized patients.
- Limit the duration of antibiotics to the shortest effective course to reduce resistance and adverse effects.
- Use of Corticosteroids:
- Consider early corticosteroid therapy in patients with severe CAP to improve outcomes.
- Avoid routine corticosteroid use in non-severe CAP due to potential risks.
- Antimicrobial Stewardship:
- Reassess antibiotic therapy daily and de-escalate based on clinical response and microbiological data.
- Transition to oral antibiotics when appropriate.
- Preventive Measures:
- Promote vaccinations and lifestyle changes to prevent recurrent CAP.
- Address and manage underlying health conditions that may predispose to CAP.
Conclusion
Effective management of CAP involves prompt diagnosis using clinical and radiographic criteria, appropriate empirical antimicrobial therapy tailored to disease severity and risk factors, and consideration of adjunctive treatments such as corticosteroids in severe cases. Antimicrobial stewardship principles should guide therapy duration and de-escalation to minimize resistance and adverse effects. Preventive strategies, including vaccinations and lifestyle modifications, are essential to reduce the incidence of CAP and improve patient outcomes.
RCT: Twice-Yearly Depemokimab Reduced Exacerbations in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma
17 Sep, 2024 | 22:39h | UTCBackground: Severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype often leads to frequent exacerbations despite treatment with medium- or high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids and additional controllers. Interleukin-5 is pivotal in eosinophil growth and survival, contributing to airway inflammation. Existing biologic therapies targeting interleukin-5 require frequent dosing intervals. Depemokimab is an ultra-long-acting anti–interleukin-5 biologic with enhanced binding affinity, potentially allowing effective dosing every six months.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-yearly depemokimab in reducing exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.
Methods: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3A trials (SWIFT-1 and SWIFT-2) were conducted. Patients aged ≥12 years with severe asthma and an eosinophilic phenotype (blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL in the previous 12 months or ≥150 cells/μL at screening) and at least two exacerbations in the prior year despite medium- or high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids plus another controller were enrolled. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive depemokimab 100 mg or placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0 and 26, alongside standard care. The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, prebronchodilator FEV₁, and asthma symptom scores at 52 weeks.
Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized, with 762 included in the full analysis set (502 depemokimab, 260 placebo). In SWIFT-1, depemokimab significantly reduced the annualized exacerbation rate compared to placebo (0.46 vs 1.11; rate ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30–0.59; P < .001). Similar results were observed in SWIFT-2 (0.56 vs 1.08; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI, 0.36–0.73; P < .001). No significant between-group differences were found in change from baseline in SGRQ scores. The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups in both trials.
Conclusions: Twice-yearly administration of depemokimab significantly reduced the annualized rate of exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.
Implications for Practice: Depemokimab administered every six months may offer an effective treatment option for reducing exacerbations in severe eosinophilic asthma, potentially enhancing patient adherence and reducing treatment burden associated with more frequent dosing schedules.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include large, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled design and replicate trials confirming efficacy. Limitations involve the lack of significant improvement in quality-of-life measures, low exacerbation rates in the placebo group, potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial conduct and outcomes, and limited data on certain subpopulations.
Future Research: Further studies are needed to assess long-term safety and efficacy, effects on quality-of-life measures, and the role of depemokimab in broader asthma populations, including those with varying eosinophil counts and biomarker profiles.
RCT: High-Intensity NPPV Reduced Criteria for Intubation in Acute COPD Exacerbations
16 Sep, 2024 | 16:50h | UTCBackground: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often lead to hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring ventilatory support. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is standard care, commonly delivered at low intensity with lower inspiratory pressures. However, approximately 15% of patients still require endotracheal intubation despite low-intensity NPPV. High-intensity NPPV, using higher inspiratory pressures to achieve greater reductions in PaCO₂, has shown benefits in stable hypercapnic COPD patients, but its effect during acute exacerbations is unclear.
Objective: To determine whether high-intensity NPPV reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with acute COPD exacerbations and persistent hypercapnia compared to low-intensity NPPV.
Methods: In a multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted at 30 respiratory wards in China from January 2019 to January 2022, 300 patients with acute COPD exacerbations and PaCO₂ greater than 45 mm Hg after 6 hours of low-intensity NPPV were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either high-intensity NPPV (inspiratory positive airway pressure [IPAP] adjusted to achieve tidal volumes of 10–15 mL/kg predicted body weight, typically IPAP 20–30 cm H₂O) or to continue low-intensity NPPV (IPAP adjusted for tidal volumes of 6–10 mL/kg, maximum IPAP 20 cm H₂O). Patients in the low-intensity group meeting prespecified criteria for intubation were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV. The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation during hospitalization, defined by prespecified clinical and gas exchange criteria. Secondary outcomes included actual endotracheal intubation rates, mortality, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.
Results: Of the 300 patients (mean age 73 years; 68% male), the primary outcome occurred in 4.8% of the high-intensity group versus 13.7% of the low-intensity group (absolute difference –9.0%; 95% CI, –15.4% to –2.5%; one-sided P = .004; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14–0.76). However, actual endotracheal intubation rates did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 3.9%; absolute difference –0.5%; 95% CI, –4.8% to 3.7%; P = .81). The high-intensity group had greater reductions in PaCO₂ levels over 72 hours (mean PaCO₂ at 72 hours: 53 mm Hg vs 64 mm Hg; P < .001) and higher rates of achieving normocapnia (21.8% vs 4.6%; P < .001). Abdominal distension occurred more frequently in the high-intensity group (37.4% vs 25.5%; absolute difference 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.5%–22.4%; P = .03), but other adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups.
Conclusions: High-intensity NPPV reduced the proportion of patients meeting criteria for endotracheal intubation compared to low-intensity NPPV in patients with acute COPD exacerbations and persistent hypercapnia. However, actual intubation rates did not differ, possibly due to crossover from low- to high-intensity NPPV in patients meeting intubation criteria.
Implications for Practice: High-intensity NPPV may be considered for patients with acute COPD exacerbations who remain hypercapnic after initial low-intensity NPPV, as it may reduce progression to severe respiratory failure requiring intubation criteria. Clinicians should monitor for abdominal distension and potential alkalosis, although these did not significantly affect overall tolerance or safety.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the multicenter randomized design, clear enrollment criteria, and standardized protocols. Limitations include early trial termination, unblinded interventions, potential bias due to allowed crossover, and lack of power to detect differences in mortality or actual intubation rates.
Future Research: Further large-scale trials are needed to confirm these findings, assess the impact on actual intubation rates and mortality, and explore the efficacy of high-intensity NPPV in different clinical settings and patient populations, including those without prior NPPV exposure or with more severe respiratory distress.
RCT: 24-Hour Oxygen Therapy Does Not Reduce Hospitalization or Mortality Compared to 15-Hour Therapy in Severe Hypoxemia
12 Sep, 2024 | 13:21h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter, registry-based randomized controlled trial compared the effects of 24-hour versus 15-hour daily oxygen therapy in 241 patients with chronic, severe hypoxemia. Patients, recruited between 2018 and 2022, were assigned to either 24 hours (117 patients) or 15 hours (124 patients) of oxygen therapy daily. The study’s primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization or death from any cause within 1 year.
Main Findings: After 12 months, the results showed no significant difference between the two groups in the primary outcome. The event rates for hospitalization or death were similar in the 24-hour and 15-hour groups (124.7 vs. 124.5 events per 100 person-years, hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI, 0.72-1.36). Secondary outcomes, including individual rates of hospitalization and mortality, also showed no meaningful differences, and adverse event rates were comparable between groups.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that increasing oxygen therapy from 15 to 24 hours per day does not reduce hospitalization or mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Therefore, the less burdensome 15-hour regimen may be preferable in clinical practice, as it is equally effective while reducing patient burden.
RCT: Azithromycin Increases Asthma Remission Rates in Adults With Persistent Uncontrolled Asthma
6 Sep, 2024 | 22:35h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This secondary analysis stems from the Asthma and Macrolides: Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety (AMAZES) trial, a randomized, double-anonymized, placebo-controlled trial. The study involved 335 adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma, who were treated with either azithromycin (500 mg, 3 times weekly) or placebo for 12 months. The goal was to evaluate azithromycin’s impact on asthma remission, defined through clinical and lung function measures.
Main Findings: Azithromycin significantly increased the rate of clinical remission compared to placebo (50.6% vs. 38.9%; P = .032). Clinical remission combined with lung function criteria was also higher in the azithromycin group (50.8% vs. 37.1%; P = .029). Although the complete remission rate (including sputum eosinophil count <3%) trended higher, it did not reach statistical significance (23% vs. 13.7%; P = .058).
Implications for Practice: This secondary analysis suggests that azithromycin, when added to standard asthma therapy, could significantly increase remission rates in adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma, including both eosinophilic and noneosinophilic subtypes.
Retrospective Study: AI Tool Accurately Excludes Pathology in Up to 52.7% of Unremarkable Chest Radiographs with Low Critical Misses – Radiology
24 Aug, 2024 | 16:14h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This retrospective study assessed the effectiveness of a commercial AI tool in correctly identifying unremarkable chest radiographs, thus potentially reducing the workload in radiology departments. The study analyzed 1,961 chest radiographs from adult patients (median age: 72 years) across four Danish hospitals. The radiographs were labeled as remarkable or unremarkable by thoracic radiologists, and the AI tool’s performance was evaluated at varying sensitivity thresholds.
Main Findings: The AI tool demonstrated a specificity of 24.5% to 52.7% at sensitivity thresholds of 99.9% to 98.0%, respectively, effectively excluding pathology in unremarkable chest radiographs. At sensitivities of 95.4% or higher, the AI had equal or lower rates of critical misses compared to radiology reports, with the AI missing only 2.2% of critical findings compared to 1.1% by radiologists at similar sensitivity levels.
Implications for Practice: The results suggest that AI tools could autonomously report up to 52.7% of unremarkable chest radiographs, potentially reducing radiologist workload without compromising patient safety. However, prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings and optimize AI deployment in clinical practice.
Retrospective Cohort Study: Rheumatoid Arthritis Linked to Over 50% Increased Lung Cancer Risk, with a Three-Fold Risk in RA-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease – Arthritis Rheumatol
18 Aug, 2024 | 18:58h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This retrospective matched cohort study examined the risk of lung cancer in 72,795 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 757 patients with RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) from the Veterans Health Administration database, compared with 633,937 non-RA controls. The study spanned from 2000 to 2019, with patients matched on age, gender, and enrollment year.
Main Findings: The study found that RA was associated with a 58% increase in lung cancer risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.58). The risk was significantly higher in RA-ILD patients, with a more than three-fold increase (aHR 3.25) compared to non-RA controls. Even among never smokers, RA patients showed a 65% increased lung cancer risk, indicating that factors beyond smoking contribute to the elevated risk.
Implications for Practice: The study underscores the significant increase in lung cancer risk among patients with RA, particularly those with RA-ILD. While this elevated risk is notable, further research is necessary to determine the most effective strategies for monitoring and managing this risk. Clinicians should be aware of these findings and consider them when evaluating the overall health and risk factors of patients with RA, especially those with additional pulmonary complications like ILD. Enhanced awareness and individualized risk assessments may help in early detection and management of lung cancer in this high-risk population.