PulmPEEPs

PulmPEEPs
  • 4.9 (55)
  • EDUCATION

Pulmonary and Critical Care content for learners and practitioners of all levels

  1. 9H AGO

    Pulm PEEPs Pearls: Spontaneous Breathing Trials

    This week’s Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode is all about spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). SBTs are a standard part of the daily practice in the intensive care unit, but the exact methods vary across ICUs and institutions. Listen in to hear about the most common methods of SBTs, the physiology of each method, and what the evidence says. Contributors This episode was prepared with research by Pulm PEEPs Associate Editor George Doumat. Dustin Latimer, another Pulm PEEPs Associate Editor, assisted with audio and video editing. Key Learning Points What an SBT is really testing An SBT is a stress test for post-extubation work of breathing, not just a ventilator check. The goal is to balance sensitivity and specificity: Too hard → unnecessary failures and delayed extubation Too easy → false positives and higher risk of reintubation Common SBT modalities and how they compare T-piece No inspiratory support and no PEEP Highest work of breathing Most “physiologic” but often too strict Pressure support (PS) + PEEP (e.g., 5/5 or 8/5) Offsets ETT resistance and provides modest assistance Easier to pass than T-piece CPAP (0/5) No inspiratory help, but provides PEEP to counter ETT resistance Sits between PS and T-piece in difficulty Evidence favors pressure-supported SBTs for most patients Large meta-analysis (~6,000 patients, >40 RCTs): Pressure-supported SBTs increase successful extubation (~7% absolute benefit) No increase in reintubation rates Trials (e.g., FAST trial): Patients pass SBTs earlier Leads to earlier extubation and fewer ventilator-associated risks Bottom line: A 30-minute PS 5/5 SBT is evidence-based and appropriate for most stable ICU patients When a T-piece still makes sense T-piece SBTs are useful when: Cost of reintubation is high Difficult airway Prior failed extubation Pretest probability of success is low Prolonged or difficult weaning Tracheostomy vs extubation decisions Need to mimic physiology without positive pressure In LV dysfunction or pulmonary edema even small amounts PEEP may significantly improve physiology Some centers use a hybrid approach: PS SBT → short confirmatory T-piece before extubation CPAP as a middle ground Rationale: Allows full patient effort while compensating for ETT resistance Evidence: Fewer and smaller trials Possible modest improvement in extubation success No clear mortality or LOS benefit Reasonable option based on patient physiology, institutional protocols, and clinician comfort No single “perfect” SBT mode Across PS, T-piece, CPAP, and newer methods (e.g., high-flow via ETT) there are no consistent differences in mortality or length of stay What matters most: Daily protocolized screening Thoughtful bedside clinical judgment Matching SBT difficulty to patient-specific risk Institutional variation is normal—and acceptable Examples: PS 10/5 in postoperative surgical ICU patients PS 5/0 as an intermediate difficulty option Key question clinicians should ask: What does passing or failing this specific SBT tell me about this patient’s likelihood of post-extubation success? Take-home pearls SBTs are stress tests of post-extubation physiology. PS 5/5 for 30 minutes is a strong default for most ICU patients. T-piece trials are valuable when false positives are costly or physiology demands it. CPAP is reasonable but supported by less robust data. Consistency, daily screening, and judgment matter more than the exact mode. References and Further Reading Burns KEA, Khan J, Phoophiboon V, Trivedi V, Gomez-Builes JC, Giammarioli B, Lewis K, Chaudhuri D, Desai K, Friedrich JO. Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques for Extubating Adults and Children Who Are Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Feb 5;7(2):e2356794. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56794. PMID: 38393729; PMCID: PMC10891471. Burns KEA, Sadeghirad B, Ghadimi M, Khan J, Phoophiboon V, Trivedi V, Gomez Builes C, Giammarioli B, Lewis K, Chaudhuri D, Desai K, Friedrich JO. Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care. 2024 Jun 8;28(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04958-4. PMID: 38849936; PMCID: PMC11162018. Subirà C, Hernández G, Vázquez A, Rodríguez-García R, González-Castro A, García C, Rubio O, Ventura L, López A, de la Torre MC, Keough E, Arauzo V, Hermosa C, Sánchez C, Tizón A, Tenza E, Laborda C, Cabañes S, Lacueva V, Del Mar Fernández M, Arnau A, Fernández R. Effect of Pressure Support vs T-Piece Ventilation Strategies During Spontaneous Breathing Trials on Successful Extubation Among Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2175-2182. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.7234. Erratum in: JAMA. 2019 Aug 20;322(7):696. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11119. PMID: 31184740; PMCID: PMC6563557. Burns KEA, Wong J, Rizvi L, Lafreniere-Roula M, Thorpe K, Devlin JW, Cook DJ, Seely A, Dodek PM, Tanios M, Piraino T, Gouskos A, Kiedrowski KC, Kay P, Mitchell S, Merner GW, Mayette M, D’Aragon F, Lamontagne F, Rochwerg B, Turgeon A, Sia YT, Charbonney E, Aslanian P, Criner GJ, Hyzy RC, Beitler JR, Kassis EB, Kutsogiannis DJ, Meade MO, Liebler J, Iyer-Kumar S, Tsang J, Cirone R, Shanholtz C, Hill NS; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Frequency of Screening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024 Dec 3;332(21):1808-1821. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.20631. PMID: 39382222; PMCID: PMC11581551. Mahul M, Jung B, Galia F, Molinari N, de Jong A, Coisel Y, Vaschetto R, Matecki S, Chanques G, Brochard L, Jaber S. Spontaneous breathing trial and post-extubation work of breathing in morbidly obese critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016 Oct 27;20(1):346. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1457-4. PMID: 27784322; PMCID: PMC5081985. Yi LJ, Tian X, Chen M, Lei JM, Xiao N, Jiménez-Herrera MF. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Four Different Spontaneous Breathing Trials for Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 22;8:731196. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.731196. PMID: 34881255; PMCID: PMC8647911.​

  2. JAN 27

    Guidelines Series: Pulmonary Hypertension - Risk Stratification and Treatment Goals

    On this week’s episode, we’re continuing our Guidelines Series exploring the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension. If you missed our first episode in the series, give it a listen to hear about the most recent recommendations regarding Pulmonary Hypertension definitions, screening, and diagnostics. Today, we’re talking about the next steps after diagnosis. Specifically, we’ll be discussing risk stratification, establishing treatment goals, and metrics for re-evaluation. We’ll additionally introduce the mainstays of pharmacologic therapy for Pulmonary Hypertension. Meet Our Co-Hosts Rupali Sood  grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada and made her way over to Baltimore for medical school at Johns Hopkins. She then completed her internal medicine residency training at Massachusetts General Hospital before returning back to Johns Hopkins, where she is currently a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow. Rupali’s interests include interstitial lung disease, particularly as related to oncologic drugs, and bedside medical education. Tom Di Vitantonio  is originally from New Jersey and attended medical school at Rutgers, New Jersey Medical School in Newark. He then completed his internal medicine residency at Weill Cornell, where he also served as a chief resident. He currently is a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow at Johns Hopkins, and he’s passionate about caring for critically ill patients, how we approach the management of pulmonary embolism, and also about medical education of trainees to help them be more confident and patient centered. Key Learning Points 1) Episode Roadmap How to set treatment goals, assess symptom burden, and risk-stratify patients with suspected/confirmed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). What tools to use to re-evaluate patients on treatment Intro to major PAH medication classes and how they map to pathways. 2) Case-based diagnostic reasoning Patient: 37-year-old woman with exertional dyspnea, mild edema, abnormal echo, telangiectasias + epistaxis → raises suspicion for HHT (hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia) and/or early connective tissue disease. Key reasoning move: start broad (Groups 2–5) and narrow using history/exam/testing. In a young patient without obvious left heart or lung disease, think more about Group 1 PAH (idiopathic/heritable/associated). HHT teaching point: HHT can cause PH in more than one way: More common: high-output PH from AVMs (often hepatic/pulmonary) Rare (1–2% mentioned): true PAH phenotype (vascular remodeling; associated with ALK1 in some patients), behaving like Group 1 PAH. 3) Functional class assessment WHO Functional Class: Class I: no symptoms with ordinary activity, only with exertion Class II: symptoms with ordinary activity Class III: symptoms with less-than-ordinary activity (can’t do usual chores/shopping without dyspnea) Class IV: symptoms at rest Practical bedside tip they give: Ask if the patient can walk at their own pace or keep up with a similar-age peer/partner. If not, think Class II (or worse). 4) Risk stratification at diagnosis: why, how, and which tools Big principle: treatment choices are driven by risk, and the goal is to move patients to low-risk quickly. ESC/ERS approach at diagnosis (as described): Use a 3-strata model predicting 1-year mortality: Low: 20% ESC/ERS risk assessment variables (10 domains discussed): Clinical progression, signs of right heart failure, syncope WHO FC Biomarkers (NT-proBNP) Exercise capacity (6MWD) Hemodynamics Imaging (echo; sometimes cardiac MRI) CPET (peak VO₂; VE/VCO₂ slope) They note: even if you don’t have everything, the calculator can still be useful with ≥3 variables. REVEAL 2.0: Builds on similar core variables but adds further patient context (demographics, renal function, BP, DLCO, etc.) Case result: both tools put her in intermediate risk (ESC/ERS ~1.6; REVEAL 2.0 score 8), underscoring that mild symptoms can still equal meaningful mortality risk. 5) Treatment goals and follow-up philosophy What they explicitly prioritize: Help patients feel better, live longer, and stay out of the hospital Use risk tools to communicate prognosis and to track improvement Reassess frequently (they mention ~every 3 months early on) until low risk is achieved “Time-to-low-risk” is an important treatment goal Also emphasized: The diagnosis is psychologically heavy; patients need clear counseling, reassurance about the plan, and connection to support groups. 6) Medication classes for the treatment of PAH Nitric oxide–cGMP pathway PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator: riociguat Important safety point: don’t combine PDE5 inhibitors with riociguat (risk of significant hypotension/hemodynamic effects) Endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) “-sentan” drugs: bosentan (less used due to side effects/interactions), ambrisentan, macitentan Teratogenicity emphasized Hepatotoxicity that requires LFT monitoring Can cause fluid retention and peripheral edema Prostacyclin pathway Prostacyclin analogs/agonists: Epoprostenol (potent; short half-life; IV administration) Treprostinil (IV/SubQ/oral/inhaled options) Selexipag (oral prostacyclin receptor agonist) 7) Sotatercept (post-guidelines) They note sotatercept wasn’t in 2022 ESC/ERS but is now “a game changer” in practice: Mechanism: ligand trap affecting TGF-β signaling / remodeling biology Positioned as potentially more disease-modifying than pure vasodilators Still evolving: where to place it earlier vs later in regimens is an active question in the field 8) How risk category maps to initial treatment intensity General approach they outline: High risk at diagnosis: parenteral prostacyclin (IV/SubQ) strongly favored, often aggressive early Intermediate risk: at least dual oral therapy (typically PDE5i + ERA); escalate if not achieving low risk Low risk: at least one oral agent; many still use dual oral depending on etiology/trajectory For the case: intermediate-risk → start dual oral therapy (they mention tadalafil + ambrisentan as a typical choice), reassess in ~3 months; add a third agent (e.g., selexipag/prostacyclin pathway) if not low risk.  References and Further Reading Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, Badagliacca R, Berger RMF, Brida M, Carlsen J, Coats AJS, Escribano-Subias P, Ferrari P, Ferreira DS, Ghofrani HA, Giannakoulas G, Kiely DG, Mayer E, Meszaros G, Nagavci B, Olsson KM, Pepke-Zaba J, Quint JK, Rådegran G, Simonneau G, Sitbon O, Tonia T, Toshner M, Vachiery JL, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Delcroix M, Rosenkranz S; ESC/ERS Scientific Document Group. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022 Oct 11;43(38):3618-3731. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac237. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2023 Apr 17;44(15):1312. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad005. PMID: 36017548. Condon DF, Nickel NP, Anderson R, Mirza S, de Jesus Perez VA. The 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension: what’s old is new. F1000Res. 2019 Jun 19;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-888. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18811.1. PMID: 31249672; PMCID: PMC6584967. Maron BA. Revised Definition of Pulmonary Hypertension and Approach to Management: A Clinical Primer. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):e029024. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029024. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37026538; PMCID: PMC10227272. Hoeper MM, Badesch DB, Ghofrani HA, Gibbs JSR, Gomberg-Maitland M, McLaughlin VV, Preston IR, Souza R, Waxman AB, Grünig E, Kopeć G, Meyer G, Olsson KM, Rosenkranz S, Xu Y, Miller B, Fowler M, Butler J, Koglin J, de Oliveira Pena J, Humbert M; STELLAR Trial Investigators. Phase 3 Trial of Sotatercept for Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2023 Apr 20;388(16):1478-1490. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2213558. Epub 2023 Mar 6. PMID: 36877098. Ruopp NF, Cockrill BA. Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Review. JAMA. 2022 Apr 12;327(14):1379-1391. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4402. Erratum in: JAMA. 2022 Sep 6;328(9):892. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13696. PMID: 35412560.

  3. JAN 13

    RFJC - FIBRONEER-IPF

    Luke Hedrick, Dave Furfaro, and recurrent RFJC guest Robert Wharton are joined again today by Nicole Ng to discuss the FIBRONEER-IPF trial investigating Nerandomilast in patients with IPF. This trial was published in NEJM in 2025 and looked at Neradomilast vs placebo for treating patients with IPF, on or off background anti-fibrotic therapy. This agents is now FDA approved for pulmonary fibrosis, and understanding the trial results is essential for any pulmonary physician treating patients with IPF or progressive pulmonary fibrosis.   Article and Reference  Today’s episode discusses the FIBRONEER-IPF trial published in NEJM in 2025. Richeldi L, Azuma A, Cottin V, Kreuter M, Maher TM, Martinez FJ, Oldham JM, Valenzuela C, Clerisme-Beaty E, Gordat M, Wachtlin D, Liu Y, Schlecker C, Stowasser S, Zoz DF, Wijsenbeek MS; FIBRONEER-IPF Trial Investigators. Nerandomilast in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2025 Jun 12;392(22):2193-2202. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2414108. Epub 2025 May 18. PMID: 40387033. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2414108 Meet Our Guests Luke Hedrick is an Associate Editor at Pulm PEEPs and runs the Rapid Fire Journal Club Series. He is a senior PCCM fellow at Emory, and will be starting as a pulmonary attending at Duke University next year. Robert Wharton is a recurring guest on Pulm PEEPs as a part of our Rapid Fire Journal Club Series. He completed his internal medicine residency at Mt. Sinai in New York City, and is currently a pulmonary and critical care fellow at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Nicole Ng is an Assistant Profess of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, and is the Associate Director of the Interstitial Lung Disease Program for the Mount Sinai National Jewish Health Respiratory Institute. Infographic Key Learning Points Why this trial mattered IPF therapies remain limited: nintedanib and pirfenidone slow (but do not stop) decline and often cause GI side effects. Nerandomilast is a newer agent (a preferential PDE4B inhibitor) with antifibrotic + immunomodulatory effects. Phase 2 data (NEJM 2022) looked very promising (suggesting near-“halt” of FVC decline), so this phase 3 trial was a big test of that signal. Trial design essentials Industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, large multinational study (332 sites, 36 countries). Population: IPF diagnosed via guideline-aligned criteria with central imaging review and multidisciplinary diagnostic confirmation. Intervention: nerandomilast 18 mg BID, 9 mg BID, or placebo; stratified by background antifibrotic use. Primary endpoint: change in FVC at 52 weeks, analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Key secondary endpoint: time to first acute exacerbation, respiratory hospitalization, or death (composite). Who was enrolled Typical IPF trial demographics: ~80% male, mean age ~70, many former smokers. Many were already on background therapy (~45% nintedanib, ~30–33% pirfenidone). Notable exclusions included significant liver disease, advanced CKD, recent major cardiovascular events, and psychiatric risk (suicidality/severe depression), reflecting class concerns seen with other PDE4 inhibitors. Efficacy: what the primary endpoint showed Nerandomilast produced a statistically significant but modest reduction in annual FVC decline vs placebo (roughly 60–70 mL difference). Importantly, it did not halt FVC decline the way the phase 2 data suggested; patients still progressed. Important nuance: interaction with pirfenidone Patients on pirfenidone had ~50% lower nerandomilast trough levels. Clinically: 9 mg BID looked ineffective with pirfenidone, so 18 mg BID is needed if used together. In those not on background therapy or on nintedanib, 9 mg and 18 mg looked similar—suggesting the apparent “dose-response” might be partly driven by the pirfenidone drug interaction Secondary and patient-centered outcomes were neutral No demonstrated benefit in the composite outcome (exacerbation/resp hospitalization/death) or its components. Quality of life measures were neutral and declined in all groups, emphasizing that slowing FVC alone may not translate into felt improvement without a disease-reversing therapy. The discussants noted this may reflect limited power/duration for these outcomes and mentioned signals from other datasets/pooling that might suggest mortality benefit—but in this specific trial, the key secondary endpoint was not positive. Safety and tolerability Diarrhea was the main adverse event: Higher overall with the 18 mg dose, and highest when combined with nintedanib (up to ~62%). Mostly mild/manageable; discontinuation due to diarrhea was relatively uncommon (but higher in those on nintedanib). Reassuringly, there was no signal for increased depression/suicidality/vasculitis despite psychiatric exclusions and theoretical class risk. How to interpret “modest FVC benefit” clinically The group framed nerandomilast as another tool that adds incremental slowing of progression. They emphasized that comparing absolute FVC differences across trials (ASCEND/INPULSIS vs this trial) is tricky because populations and “natural history” in placebo arms have changed over time (earlier diagnosis, improved supportive care, etc.). They highlighted channeling bias: patients already on antifibrotics may be sicker (longer disease duration, lower PFTs, more oxygen), complicating subgroup comparisons. Practical takeaways for real-world use All three antifibrotics are “fair game”; choice should be shared decision-making based on goals, tolerability, dosing preferences, and logistics. Reasons they favored nerandomilast in practice: No routine lab monitoring (major convenience advantage vs traditional antifibrotics). Generally better GI tolerability than nintedanib. BID dosing (vs pirfenidone TID). Approach to combination therapy: They generally favor add-on rather than immediate combination to reduce confusion about side effects—while acknowledging it may slow reaching “maximal therapy.” Dosing guidance emphasized: Start 18 mg BID for IPF, especially if combined with pirfenidone (since dose reduction may make it ineffective). 9 mg BID may be considered if dose reduction is needed and the patient is not on pirfenidone (e.g., monotherapy or with nintedanib).

    30 min

  4. JAN 6

    Pulm PEEPs Pearls: Airway Clearance Techniques in Non-CF Bronchiectasis

    This week’s Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode is a focused discussion between Furf and Monty about non-pharmacologic techniques for airway clearance in the non-Cystic Fibrosis bronchiectasis population. This is a focused, high-yield discussion of the key points about airway clearance, including practical tips and a discussion of the evidence. This episode was prepared in conjunction with George Doumat MD. Goerge is an internal medicine resident at UT Southwestern and joined us for a Pulm PEEPs – BMJ Thorax journal club episode. He is now acting as a Pulm PEEPs Editor for the Pulm PEEPs Pearls series. Key Learning Points 1) Why airway clearance matters in non-CF bronchiectasis Non-CF bronchiectasis is defined by irreversible bronchial dilation with impaired mucociliary clearance, leading to mucus retention. Retained sputum drives the classic vicious cycle: mucus → infection → neutrophilic inflammation → airway damage → worse clearance. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are meant to interrupt this cycle, primarily by improving mucus mobilization and symptom control. 2) What ACTs are trying to achieve clinically Main benefits are: More effective sputum clearance Reduced cough/dyspnea burden Improved activity tolerance and quality of life Effects on spirometry are usually small. Exacerbation reduction is possible, but evidence is mixed—some longer-term data suggest benefit for specific techniques. 3) The main ACT “families” and when to use them Breathing-based techniques (device-free, flexible) ACBT (Active Cycle of Breathing Technique): breath control → deep breaths with holds → huffing. Pros: portable, adaptable, good first-line option. Key requirement: teaching/coaching to get technique right. Autogenic drainage: controlled breathing at different lung volumes to move mucus from peripheral → central airways. Pros: no device, can work well once learned. Cons: more technically demanding, needs training and practice. PEP / Oscillatory PEP (stents airways + “vibrates” mucus loose) PEP: back-pressure helps prevent small airway collapse during exhalation; often paired with huff/cough. Oscillatory PEP (Flutter/Acapella/Aerobika): adds oscillation that many patients find easy and satisfying to use. Good fit for: people who benefit from airway stenting, want something portable, and prefer a device. Mechanical/manual techniques (help when patient can’t self-clear well) HFCWO (“the vest”): external chest wall oscillation; helpful for high sputum volumes, dexterity limits, or difficulty coordinating breathing maneuvers. Postural drainage/percussion/vibration: caregiver/therapist-assisted options; still useful but consider: GERD/reflux risk with certain positions Hemoptysis risk with vigorous techniques 4) How to choose the “right” technique (the practical framework) There is no one-size-fits-all. Match the tool to the patient: Sputum burden (volume/viscosity) Strength, coordination, cognition, dexterity Comorbidities (GERD, hemoptysis history, severe obstruction/airway collapse) Lifestyle + portability (what they’ll actually do) Cost/access and availability of respiratory therapy/physio support A key mindset from the script: this is not a lifetime contract—reassess and adjust over time with shared decision-making. 5) Evidence takeaways (what improves, what doesn’t) ACTs reliably improve sputum expectoration and often symptoms/QoL. QoL/cough scores (e.g., SGRQ, LCQ) tend to improve modestly, particularly with oscillatory PEP and some vest studies. Lung function: typically minimal change; occasional short-term FEV₁ benefit is reported in some vest trials. Exacerbations: mixed overall; the script highlights a longer-term RCT of ELTGOL showing fewer exacerbations at 12 months vs placebo exercises. Safety: generally excellent; main cautions are hemoptysis and reflux (depending on technique/positioning). 6) Special population pearls Hemoptysis / fragile airways: start with gentle breathing-based ACTs (ACBT, controlled huffing); avoid overly vigorous oscillatory/manual methods if concerned. Severe obstruction or early airway collapse: PEP/oscillatory PEP can help by keeping small airways open on exhalation. Mobility/coordination barriers: consider HFCWO vest or simple oscillatory PEP devices to enable daily adherence. During exacerbations: keep it simple—1–2 reliable techniques, prioritize daily consistency, and re-check technique. 7) The “real” bottom line Start with simple, self-manageable options (often ACBT ± PEP). The “best” ACT is the one the patient will do consistently. Reassess technique and fit over time; education and demonstration are part of the therapy. References and Further Reading  Lee AL et al., “Airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis,” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; PMC7175838. PMID: 26591003. Athanazio RA et al., “Airway Clearance Techniques in Bronchiectasis,” Front Med (Lausanne). 2020; PMC7674976. PMID: 33251032. Iacono R et al., “Mucociliary clearance techniques for treating non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis,” Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015; PMID: 26078380. Polverino E et al., “European Respiratory Society statement on airway clearance techniques in bronchiectasis,” Eur Respir J. 2023; PMID: 37142337. Doumat G, Aksamit TR, Kanj AN. Bronchiectasis: A clinical review of inflammation. Respir Med. 2025 Aug;244:108179. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2025.108179. Epub 2025 May 25. PMID: 40425105.

  5. 12/23/2025

    RFJC - PREDMETH

    Today, Dave Furfaro, Luke Hedrick, and Robert Wharton discuss the PREDMETH trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2025. This was a non-inferiority trial comparing prednisone to methotrexate for upfront therapy in treatment-naive sarcoidosis patients. Listen in for a break down of the trial, analysis, and clinically applicable pearls. Article and Reference Todays’ episode discusses the PREDMETH trial published in NEJM in 2025. Kahlmann V, Janssen Bonás M, Moor CC, Grutters JC, Mostard RLM, van Rijswijk HNAJ, van der Maten J, Marges ER, Moonen LAA, Overbeek MJ, Koopman B, Loth DW, Nossent EJ, Wagenaar M, Kramer H, Wielders PLML, Bonta PI, Walen S, Bogaarts BAHA, Kerstens R, Overgaauw M, Veltkamp M, Wijsenbeek MS; PREDMETH Collaborators. First-Line Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with Prednisone or Methotrexate. N Engl J Med. 2025 Jul 17;393(3):231-242. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2501443. Epub 2025 May 18. PMID: 40387020. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2501443 Meet Our Hosts Luke Hedrick is an Associate Editor at Pulm PEEPs and runs the Rapid Fire Journal Club Series. He is a senior PCCM fellow at Emory, and will be starting as a pulmonary attending at Duke University next year. Robert Wharton is a recurring guest on Pulm PEEPs as a part of our Rapid Fire Journal Club Series. He completed his internal medicine residency at Mt. Sinai in New York City, and is currently a first year pulmonary and critical care fellow at Johns Hopkins. Key Learning Points Clinical context Prednisone remains the traditional first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis when treatment is indicated, with evidence for short-term improvements in symptoms, radiographic findings, and pulmonary function—but with substantial, familiar steroid toxicities (weight gain, insomnia, HTN/DM, infection risk, etc.). Despite widespread use, glucocorticoids haven’t been robustly tested head-to-head against many alternatives as initial therapy, and evidence for preventing long-term decline (especially in severe disease) is limited. Immunosuppressants (like methotrexate) are often used as steroid-sparing agents, but guideline recommendations are generally conditional/low-quality evidence, and practice varies. Why PREDMETH matters It addresses a real-world question: Can methotrexate be an initial alternative to prednisone in pulmonary sarcoidosis, rather than being reserved only for steroid-sparing later? It also probes a common clinical belief: MTX has slower onset than prednisone (often assumed, not well-proven). Trial design (what to know) Open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial across 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. Included patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who had a clear pulmonary indication to start systemic therapy (moderate/severe symptoms plus objective risk features like reduced FVC/DLCO or documented decline, plus parenchymal abnormalities). Excluded: non–treatment-naïve patients and those whose primary indication was extrapulmonary disease. Treat-to-tolerability with escalation: both drugs started low and were slowly increased; switch/add-on allowed for inadequate efficacy or unacceptable side effects. Primary endpoint: change in FVC (with the usual caveat that FVC is “objective-ish,” but effort-dependent and not always patient-centered). Noninferiority margin: 5% FVC, justified as within biologic/measurement variation and “not clinically relevant.” Outcomes assessed at weeks 4, 16, 24; powered for ~110 patients to detect the NI margin. Patient population (who this applies to) Mostly middle-aged (~40s) with mild-to-moderate physiologic impairment on average (FVC ~77% predicted; DLCO ~70% predicted). Netherlands-based cohort with limited Black representation (~7%), which matters for generalizability. Would have been helpful to know more about comorbidities (e.g., diabetes), which can strongly influence prednisone risk. Main findings (what happened) Methotrexate was noninferior to prednisone at week 24 for FVC: Between-group difference in least-squares mean change at week 24: −1.17 percentage points (favoring prednisone) with CI −4.27 to +1.93, staying within the 5% NI margin. Timing mattered: Prednisone showed earlier benefit (notably by week 4) in FVC and across quality-of-life measures. By week 24, those early differences largely washed out—possibly because MTX “catches up,” and/or because crossover increased over time. In their reporting, MTX didn’t meet noninferiority for FVC until week 24, supporting the practical message that prednisone works faster. Crossover and analysis nuance (important for interpretation) Crossover was fairly high, which complicates noninferiority interpretation: MTX arm: some switched to prednisone for adverse events and others had prednisone added for disease progression/persistent symptoms. Prednisone arm: some had MTX added. In noninferiority trials, heavy crossover can bias intention-to-treat analyses toward finding “no difference” (making noninferiority easier to claim). Per-protocol analyses avoid some of that but introduce other biases. They reported both. Safety signals (what to remember clinically) Adverse events were very common in both arms (almost everyone), mostly mild. Side-effect patterns fit expectations: Prednisone: more insomnia (and classic steroid issues). MTX: more headache/cough/rash, and notably liver enzyme elevations (about 1 in 4), with a small number discontinuing. Serious adverse events were rare; numbers were too small to confidently separate “signal vs noise,” but overall known risk profiles apply. Limitations (why you shouldn’t over-read it) Open-label design, and FVC—while objective-ish—is still effort-dependent and can be influenced by expectation/behavior. Small trial, limiting subgroup conclusions (e.g., severity strata, different phenotypes). Generalizability issues (Netherlands demographics; US populations have higher rates of obesity/metabolic syndrome, which may tilt the steroid risk-benefit equation). Crossover reduces precision and interpretability of between-group differences over time. Practice implications (the “so what”) For many patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis needing systemic therapy, MTX is a reasonable initial alternative to prednisone when thinking long-term tolerability and steroid avoidance. Prednisone likely provides faster symptom/QoL relief in the first weeks—so it may be preferable when rapid improvement is important. The trial strengthens the case for a patient-centered discussion: short-term relief vs side-effect tradeoffs, and the possibility of early combination therapy in more severe cases (suggested, not proven).

  6. 12/09/2025

    Guidelines Series: Pulmonary Hypertension - Definitions, Screening, and Diagnosis

    Today we’re kicking off another segment in our Guidelines Series, and doing a deep dive into the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Over a series of episodes we’ll talk about the most recent updates to definitions around pulmonary hypertension, recognizing and diagnosing Group 1 – 5 pulmonary hypertension, risk stratification, and treatments. In this first episode, we will review the most recent definitions, including changes to the definitions that were new in 2022. We’ll then talk about recognizing and diagnosing pulmonary hypertension with tips and insights along the way.   Meet Our Co-Hosts Rupali Sood  grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada and made her way over to Baltimore for medical school at Johns Hopkins. She then completed her internal medicine residency training at Massachusetts General Hospital before returning back to Johns Hopkins, where she is currently a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow alongside Tom. Rupali’s interests include interstitial lung disease, particularly as related to oncologic drugs. And she also loves bedside medical education. Tom Di Vitantonio  is originally from New Jersey and attended medical school at Rutgers, New Jersey Medical School in Newark. He then completed his internal medicine residency at Weill Cornell, where he also served as a chief resident. He currently is a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow at Johns Hopkins, and he’s passionate about caring for critically ill patients, how we approach the management of pulmonary embolism, and also about medical education of trainees to help them be more confident and patient centered in the care they have going forward. Infographic Key Learning Points Why to have a high index of suspicion for pulmonary hypertension (PH) PH often presents subtly with slowly progressive dyspnea on exertion, fatigue, lightheadedness, exertional chest pain, or syncope. There’s often a delay of 1–2+ years from symptom onset to diagnosis, which is associated with worse mortality. Early recognition and treatment, especially for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH, WHO group 1), can significantly change outcomes.   When to suspect PH Think PH when: Dyspnea is out of proportion to: CT parenchymal findings (relatively normal lungs) Spirometry (normal FEV₁/FVC, volumes) There are subtle but progressive symptoms over months: Reduced exercise tolerance No obvious alternative explanation (e.g., no overt HF, CAD, big ILD, etc.) Physical exam may show (often late): Elevated JVP, V waves (TR) Peripheral edema, hepatomegaly, ascites Loud P2, RV heave In the case: a woman with systemic sclerosis + slowly progressive exertional dyspnea + relatively normal CT parenchyma and spirometry → high suspicion.   WHO classification: 5 PH groups (big picture + why it matters) Used for pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment choices: Group 1 – PAH Idiopathic, heritable (e.g., BMPR2), drug-induced (e.g., dasatinib) Connective tissue disease (esp. systemic sclerosis) Portal hypertension (portopulmonary HTN) HIV, HHT, congenital heart disease/shunts Rare: PVOD, PCH Group 2 – PH due to left heart disease HFrEF, HFpEF, valvular disease Most common cause worldwide. Group 3 – PH due to lung disease/hypoxia COPD, ILD, combined pulmonary fibrosis–emphysema OSA/obesity hypoventilation, chronic hypoxemia Group 4 – CTEPH Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension Group 5 – Multifactorial/unclear Sarcoidosis, myeloproliferative disorders, CKD, sickle cell, etc. Patients can span multiple groups (e.g., systemic sclerosis: group 1 and/or group 3; sickle cell: many mechanisms).   Initial workup & refining pre-test probability Once you suspect PH, you’re trying to answer: Does this patient likely have PH? If yes, what group(s) are most likely? Core non-invasive tests: NT-proBNP (preferred over BNP) Surrogate of RV strain and prognosis. Normal value makes significant RV failure less likely. Oxygenation & exercise Resting SpO₂ plus ambulatory sats; consider 6-minute walk test. Exertional desaturation is common and clinically meaningful. CXR & ECG Low yield but may show RV enlargement, right axis deviation, etc. Pulmonary function tests Full set: spirometry, volumes, DLCO. Clue: isolated or disproportionately low DLCO with relatively preserved FVC suggests pulmonary vascular disease. Imaging High-res CT chest – parenchymal disease (ILD, emphysema). V/Q scan – best screening test for CTEPH; better than CT angiography for chronic disease. Sleep testing / overnight oximetry When OSA/nocturnal hypoxemia suspected.   Echo: estimating PH probability (not diagnosis) TTE is the key screening tool but does not diagnose PH. Main elements: Peak tricuspid regurgitant (TR) velocity Used to estimate pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP). Categories: Low probability: TR velocity 3.4 m/s. The presence and severity of TR ≠ TR velocity. You can have severe TR without PH. “Other signs” of PH/RV dysfunction on echo: RV enlargement or systolic dysfunction (qualitative, TAPSE 3.4) or clearly abnormal RV → strongly consider RHC if it would change management. Also: Echo is great to follow RV size/function and PASP over time once PH is diagnosed and treated. Case echo: TR velocity 3.1 m/s + mild RA enlargement + moderate RV enlargement + TAPSE 1.6 cm → intermediate probability, consistent with PH and RV involvement.   Right heart cath (RHC): gold standard & updated definitions You cannot definitively diagnose or classify PH without RHC. Key directly measured values: RA, RV, PA pressures Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP/PAWP) ≈ LVEDP Oxygen saturations in chambers/vessels Cardiac output (thermodilution) Key derived values: Cardiac output (Fick) Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) Updated hemodynamic definitions: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) mPAP ≥ 20 mm Hg (lowered from ≥ 25). Pre-capillary PH (think PAH, group 1; also groups 3, 4, some 5): mPAP ≥ 20 PAWP ≤ 15 PVR > 2 Wood units (new lower threshold) Isolated post-capillary PH (IpcPH) (group 2) mPAP ≥ 20 PAWP > 15 PVR ≤ 2 Combined pre- and post-capillary PH (CpcPH) mPAP ≥ 20 PAWP > 15 PVR > 2 Rationale for the changes: Normal mPAP in healthy people is 2 WU = precapillary component Don’t forget NT-proBNP, DLCO, V/Q scan, and high-risk screening (especially in systemic sclerosis and BMPR2 carriers).   References Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, Badagliacca R, Berger RMF, Brida M, Carlsen J, Coats AJS, Escribano-Subias P, Ferrari P, Ferreira DS, Ghofrani HA, Giannakoulas G, Kiely DG, Mayer E, Meszaros G, Nagavci B, Olsson KM, Pepke-Zaba J, Quint JK, Rådegran G, Simonneau G, Sitbon O, Tonia T, Toshner M, Vachiery JL, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Delcroix M, Rosenkranz S; ESC/ERS Scientific Document Group. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022 Oct 11;43(38):3618-3731. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac237. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2023 Apr 17;44(15):1312. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad005. PMID: 36017548. Condon DF, Nickel NP, Anderson R, Mirza S, de Jesus Perez VA. The 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension: what’s old is new. F1000Res. 2019 Jun 19;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-888. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18811.1. PMID: 31249672; PMCID: PMC6584967. Maron BA. Revised Definition of Pulmonary Hypertension and Approach to Management: A Clinical Primer. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):e029024. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029024. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37026538; PMCID: PMC10227272.

    1 hr

  7. 11/25/2025

    Pulm PEEPs Pearls: Methylene Blue

    Furf and Monty are back today with another Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode, and discussing the use of methylene blue for patients with septic shock. They review the clinical scenarios when this comes up, the mechanism, some key data, and some take aways, all in 15 minutes! Let us know any other topics you’d like covered on the show and make sure to like, give us 5 stars, and subscribe wherever you’re listening to this podcast. This episode was prepared in conjunction with George Doumat MD. Goerge is an internal medicine resident at UT Southwestern and joined us for a Pulm PEEPs – BMJ Thorax journal club episode. He is now acting as a Pulm PEEPs Editor for the Pulm PEEPs Pearls series. Key Learning Points Clinical context: when does methylene blue even come up? This is not a first-line sepsis drug. It’s considered in catecholamine-refractory vasoplegic septic shock, typically when: Norepinephrine is at high dose Vasopressin is on board Often a 3rd or 4th vasopressor is being used (e.g., phenylephrine, angiotensin II) The phenotype is strongly vasodilatory/vasoplegic (warm, distributive shock) rather than primarily cardiogenic. Mechanism of action (why it might help) Methylene blue: Inhibits inducible nitric oxide synthase and guanylate cyclase. Blunts excess nitric oxide and cyclic GMP–mediated vasodilation, which are key in vasoplegic sepsis. Practical translation: It restores vascular tone and can make the vasculature more responsive to catecholamines. It’s also used in post-CPB vasoplegia (e.g., after cardiac surgery, especially in patients on ACE inhibitors) and has migrated from that world into ICU sepsis practice. Typical dosing strategy (as described in the episode) Common approach: 1–3 mg/kg IV bolus, then Reassess hemodynamics (MAP, dynamic perfusion markers). If there’s a response, consider a continuous infusion or repeat bolus. Key nuance: unlike other pressors that start as drips, methylene blue is often trialed as a bolus first to see if it’s doing anything. What does the evidence suggest? Most data are from small, single-center, heterogeneous studies, so evidence quality is low. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews (through ~2024–25) suggest: Hemodynamics Can increase MAP (roughly 1–10 mmHg across studies). May shorten total vasopressor duration (one meta-analysis ~30 hours less, though this is not definitive). Secondary physiologic effects Some small improvements in PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F) ratio in certain studies. Clinical outcomes Possible reduction in hospital length of stay (≈ up to 2 days in some pooled analyses). Some signal toward lower short-term mortality, but: Studies are small Heterogeneous Evidence is very low certainty Bottom line: There’s a repeatable signal that methylene blue: Raises MAP Helps reduce catecholamine requirements But hard clinical outcomes (mortality, LOS, ventilator days) remain uncertain. Safety profile & important adverse effects Things to watch for: Methemoglobinemia Serotonin syndrome Especially in patients on SSRIs, though in life-threatening refractory shock the hosts still lean toward using it with caution. Pulse oximeter artifact Can distort SpO₂ readings. Urine discoloration Blue/green urine—benign but striking. Notably: Methylene blue is both a treatment for and a potential cause of methemoglobinemia, depending on context and dosing. Guidelines & where it fits in practice Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021: Does not recommend methylene blue for routine use in septic shock. No major critical care society includes it in standard septic shock bundles or protocols. The hosts frame methylene blue as: A rescue therapy, not guideline therapy. Something to consider only in refractory vasoplegic shock, ideally with: Multidisciplinary discussion (intensivist, pharmacist, etc.). Clear documentation that this is off-guideline, salvage use. Practical bedside framing (“2 a.m. in the ICU”) They emphasize three pillars of practice: Physiology – mechanism makes sense (NO / cGMP / vasodilation). Empiric evidence – small studies and meta-analyses show a signal but low-quality data. Bedside reality – at 2 a.m., with a patient in multi-pressor, refractory vasoplegic shock, you sometimes reach for imperfect tools. So, the practical take: You should NOT: Use methylene blue early. Treat it as part of standard sepsis care. You may consider it when: Shock is clearly vasoplegic and refractory. Norepi + vasopressin + at least one more vasopressor are maxed. Team agrees this is salvage therapy and understands the limited evidence and side effects.

    16 min

  8. 11/11/2025

    Pulm PEEPs at CHEST 2025 - Widened Airways and Narrowed Differentials

    For today’s podcast we have a special episode. We were extremely grateful to be invited to present live at CHEST 2025 this year. Kristina Montemayor, and Pulm PEEPs Associate Editors Luke Hedrick, Tom Di Vitantonio, and Rupali Sood hosted a session entitled “Widened Airways and Narrowed Differentials”. It is a great session around bronchiectasis. Enjoy!   Meet Our Guests Dr. Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is  a Professor of Medicine at NYU where she is also Associate Director of Clinical and Academic Affairs for the pulmonary and critical care division. In addition to that, she’s the director of the bronchiectasis and NTM program and also serves as a program director for the pulmonary and critical care fellowship. Case Snapshot 60-year-old with CLL (in remission) → recurrent “pneumonias,” diffuse (not single-lobe), later dx’d with CVID; serial CTs: upper-lobe–predominant bronchiectasis, tree-in-bud, mucus impaction; multiple AFB+ cultures (MAC, later M. abscessus); recurrent bacterial flares (MSSA/MRSA).   CT Images   Key Learning Points Imaging pearls Tree-in-bud = small airways (bronchiolar) impaction/inflammation, not a diagnosis. Differential guided by distribution + chronicity: Acute/diffuse → bacterial/viral/NTM infection Dependent/basal → aspiration Persistent + nodular + bronchiectasis → NTM common Bronchiectasis CT signs (think: “ring, taper, edge”): Broncho-arterial ratio >1 (signet-ring) Lack of normal tapering Visible bronchi within 1 cm of pleura Location matters: Upper lobes → CF, sarcoid, prior TB/radiation Middle lobe/lingula → NTM classic; consider ABPA if central Lower lobes → aspiration, PCD, CTD, immunodeficiency NTM: diagnosis & when to treat Use all three (2020 guideline frame): clinical symptoms, compatible CT, microbiology (≥2 sputum cultures or 1 bronch +, etc.). Not every positive culture = disease needing drugs. If you defer pharmacologic therapy, follow closely (symptoms, sputum, PFTs, interval CT if change). Bug matters: MAC, M. abscessus, kansasii etc. “Low-virulence” species (e.g., M. gordonae) can still flag underlying airway disease. Regimens (MAC, macrolide-susceptible): azithro + ethambutol + rifampin (intermittent for nodular-bronchiectatic; daily ± IV amikacin for fibro-cavitary/advanced). Macrolide is the backbone; the others protect against resistance. M. abscessus: check for inducible macrolide resistance (prolonged in-vitro testing). Monitoring: sputum q1–3 mo; labs (CBC/CMP), vision (ethambutol), hearing (aminoglycosides). Treat ~12 months beyond culture conversion. Anti-inflammatory macrolide for bronchiectasis is contraindicated if macrolide-susceptible NTM is present—risk of resistance. Bronchiectasis management essentials It’s a syndrome: symptoms/exacerbations plus CT changes. Airway clearance is foundational (exercise + devices ± hypertonic saline/DNase when indicated). Expect CT and symptom gains with adherence. Exacerbations often need ~14 days of pathogen-directed antibiotics (short courses may fail). Take the “easy win” when a conventional pathogen explains the flare. Workup framework (start with a core bundle, then target) Core “every patient” bundle CBC with diff (look for eosinophilia/hematologic clues) Quantitative IgG/IgA/IgM (primary/secondary immunodeficiency) ABPA screen: total IgE + Aspergillus-specific IgE/IgG Sputum cultures: routine bacteria + AFB + fungal (if producing) Baseline PFTs Targeted tests (guided by history, distribution, microbes) CF evaluation: sweat chloride and/or CFTR genotyping (especially with upper-lobe disease, chronic sinusitis/nasal polyps, pancreatitis/malabsorption, infertility/CAVD). PCD: nasal NO, genetics, specialized ciliary studies (adult cases may be mild and missed by genetics alone). Alpha-1 antitrypsin (never-smoker emphysema, liver hx) CTD serologies (RA, Sjögren’s, etc.), if suggestive Aspiration/upper-GI assessment when basal-predominant or reflux symptoms For suspected/known CVID: vaccine response assessment if not on replacement (this patient was already on IVIG). Practical diagnostic habits Re-read the CT yourself—radiology may under-call mild bronchiectasis in ED/PE-protocol scans. Use a diagnostic time-out when the course isn’t fitting: name your working dx, list fits/mismatches, consider common diseases with atypical presentations, multi-morbidity, and can’t-miss alternatives; ask for help early; communicate uncertainty. Teach-to-remember pearls from the case Recurrent, geographically scattered pneumonias → think systemic causes (immunodeficiency, CF/PCD), not just focal anatomic problems. Upper-lobe bronchiectasis + CAVD is a CF red flag—even in the 60s. Adult-onset CF is real and actionable. In CF today, MSSA can be more common than Pseudomonas on culture; don’t let absence of Pseudomonas dissuade you. Airway clearance adherence can change CTs; instruct patients to ramp up before surveillance scans for a fair assessment. If symptoms abate with targeted therapy to a conventional pathogen, you may avoid immediate NTM re-treatment—but keep a tight follow-up loop.

    30 min
See All (117)

4.9
out of 5
55 Ratings

About

Pulmonary and Critical Care content for learners and practitioners of all levels

Information

  • Creator
    PulmPEEPs
  • Years Active
    2021 - 2026
  • Episodes
    117
  • Copyright
    © Pulm PEEPs
  • Show Website
    PulmPEEPs

You Might Also Like