Michael A. Jantz

Bio: Michael A. Jantz is an academic researcher from University of Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lung cancer & Bronchoscopy. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 84 publications receiving 2873 citations.

Effect of Endobronchial Coils vs Usual Care on Exercise Tolerance in Patients With Severe Emphysema: The RENEW Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Importance Preliminary clinical trials have demonstrated that endobronchial coils compress emphysematous lung tissue and may improve lung function, exercise tolerance, and symptoms in patients with emphysema and severe lung hyperinflation. Objective To determine the effectiveness and safety of endobronchial coil treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial conducted among 315 patients with emphysema and severe air trapping recruited from 21 North American and 5 European sites from December 2012 through November 2015. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to continue usual care alone (guideline based, including pulmonary rehabilitation and bronchodilators; n = 157) vs usual care plus bilateral coil treatment (n = 158) involving 2 sequential procedures 4 months apart in which 10 to 14 coils were bronchoscopically placed in a single lobe of each lung. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary effectiveness outcome was difference in absolute change in 6-minute-walk distance between baseline and 12 months (minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 25 m). Secondary end points included the difference between groups in 6-minute walk distance responder rate, absolute change in quality of life using the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (MCID, 4) and change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV 1 ; MCID, 10%). The primary safety analysis compared the proportion of participants experiencing at least 1 of 7 prespecified major complications. Results Among 315 participants (mean age, 64 years; 52% women), 90% completed the 12-month follow-up. Median change in 6-minute walk distance at 12 months was 10.3 m with coil treatment vs −7.6 m with usual care, with a between-group difference of 14.6 m (Hodges-Lehmann 97.5% CI, 0.4 m to ∞; 1-sided P = .02). Improvement of at least 25 m occurred in 40.0% of patients in the coil group vs 26.9% with usual care (odds ratio, 1.8 [97.5% CI, 1.1 to ∞]; unadjusted between-group difference, 11.8% [97.5% CI, 1.0% to ∞]; 1-sided P = .01). The between-group difference in median change in FEV 1 was 7.0% (97.5% CI, 3.4% to ∞; 1-sided P P P = .002). Other serious adverse events including pneumonia (20% coil vs 4.5% usual care) and pneumothorax (9.7% vs 0.6%, respectively) occurred more frequently in the coil group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with emphysema and severe hyperinflation treated for 12 months, the use of endobronchial coils compared with usual care resulted in an improvement in median exercise tolerance that was modest and of uncertain clinical importance, with a higher likelihood of major complications. Further follow-up is needed to assess long-term effects on health outcomes. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01608490

Pathophysiology of the pleura.

Abstract: The pleural mesothelial cell is an essential cell in maintaining the normal homeostasis of the pleural space and it is also a central component of the pathophysiologic processes affecting the pleural space. In this review, we will review the defense mechanisms of the pleural mesothelium and changes in pleural physiology as a result of inflammatory, infectious, and malignant conditions with a focus on cytokine and chemokine networks. We will also review the processes involved in the pathogenesis of pleural fibrosis.

Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report. GOLD Executive Summary

Abstract: This Executive Summary of the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 report focuses primarily on the revised and novel parts of the document. The most significant changes include: (1) the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been refined to separate the spirometric assessment from symptom evaluation. ABCD groups are now proposed to be derived exclusively from patient symptoms and their history of exacerbations; (2) for each of the groups A to D, escalation strategies for pharmacologic treatments are proposed; (3) the concept of deescalation of therapy is introduced in the treatment assessment scheme; (4) nonpharmacologic therapies are comprehensively presented; and (5) the importance of comorbid conditions in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is reviewed.