123. Critical Care Medicine for Non-Intensivists

Today we're joined by Dr. Molly Hayes and talking about an upcoming CME course: Principles of Critical Care Medicine for Non-Intensive Care Specialists. This is a wonderful education course covering a wide array of topics in critical care in a case-based, systematic, and peer-reviewed fashion. The course is interactive and all resources will be available for attendees afterwards for their review. You can sign up at https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/criticalmed and save using the discount code "PulmPEEPS50"!

Today we have another Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode about a core critical care topic. Furf and Monty will be giving a high level overview of the use of steroids in sepsis including a review of the relevant literature and recent guidelines, and pragmatic bedside points. 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 Why Steroids in Sepsis? Steroids do not treat the infection — antimicrobials are always first and remain the cornerstone. The goal is addressing critical illness–related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI), where cortisol production cannot keep up with the overwhelming inflammatory demand of septic shock. Hydrocortisone helps in two main ways: Blunts the dysregulated inflammatory response — tempers the excessive vasodilation and febrile response that drive harm beyond the infection itself. Restores vascular sensitivity to catecholamines — sepsis downregulates adrenergic receptors; steroids turn that responsiveness back on. Clinical takeaway: The first thing you notice is vasopressor weaning (or a bend in the escalation curve) — not a rapid improvement in fever or white count. Caveat: These trials predate modern sepsis phenotyping. None distinguish hyperinflammatory vs. hypoinflammatory responders — they treat all comers. The Evidence: Four Landmark Trials Every IM resident and critical care fellow will eventually journal-club these four. The most consistent signal across all of them is faster shock reversal and reduced vasopressor use; the mortality question remains unsettled. Trial (Year)NRegimenKey FindingAnnane (2002)~300Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisoneMortality benefit in ACTH non-responders; criticized methodology and messy cortisol-response testing; not cleanly replicated.CORTICUS (2008)~500Hydrocortisone aloneFaster shock reversal but no mortality benefit, regardless of cortisol responsiveness. Raised (later allayed) superinfection concern. Cornerstone for abandoning routine cort-stim testing.ADRENAL (2018)~3,800Hydrocortisone aloneFaster vasopressor weaning; no 90-day mortality benefit.APROCCHSS (2018)~1,200Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisoneMortality benefit at 90 days. Bottom line: Faster shock reversal is consistent. Mortality benefit appears in 2 of 4 trials (both used fludrocortisone) but not the others. A 2026 meta-analysis showed benefit for hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs. placebo, but not for hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs. hydrocortisone alone — suggesting hydrocortisone drives the main effect. Who Gets Steroids, and When? 2021 Surviving Sepsis: Consider steroids for norepinephrine or epinephrine ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min for ≥ 4 hours despite adequate resuscitation — a reasonable bedside trigger. Early 2026 update: Moved away from a specific numeric trigger — consider steroids when a septic patient is not responding well to vasopressors or has escalating requirements. Make a clinical decision. (Quality of evidence: low to moderate.) Go faster than the threshold when: Known/suspected adrenal insufficiency or home steroids, or florid pressor-requiring shock on arrival. A practical escalation sequence: escalating norepinephrine → add vasopressin (per VASST) → then add steroids if requirements keep climbing. Do NOT wait for an ACTH stimulation test. It does not reliably predict who responds and only delays treatment. Sepsis is an elevated-cortisol state but can dissociate ACTH and cortisol, and cortisol-binding globulin is depleted — the test is too messy to guide care. What to Give: The Regimen Standard dose: Hydrocortisone 200 mg/day, typically 50 mg IV Q6H. (Original trials often used continuous infusions, rarely used in the U.S.) Some start with a 100 mg bolus to gain control. Higher dose: If chronically on steroids / adrenally insufficient, consider ~300 mg/day (e.g., 100 mg Q8H). Fludrocortisone: Unsettled. The two mortality-benefit trials added it (50 mcg PO/NG/OG daily), but hydrocortisone already has mineralocorticoid activity and meta-analyses don’t show added benefit over hydrocortisone alone. Most clinicians omit it — adding it is reasonable and safe, just be honest about the uncertainty. Duration & Tapering Typical course: ~7 days is most common. Trial practices varied (ADRENAL ~7 days; VANISH used a taper after 6 days; some continue until pressors are off). No taper needed. You do not need to taper for adrenal insufficiency after a short course — just stop. If pressors dramatically rebound, you can restart, but most patients have gained the benefit they’ll get by day 7. Pitfalls & Safety Hyperglycemia: Expected and must be managed (monitor closely; insulin drip if needed). No signal for major DKA / severe complications in the trials. Superinfection / fungal infection: The most-quoted concern, but the overall literature does not show a convincing, statistically significant increase. Be disciplined about stopping on schedule. Muscle weakness: Steroids can worsen critical illness myopathy; a short 7-day course likely has limited effect, but be aware. Other: GI bleeding (follow general PPI prophylaxis guidance) and sodium disturbances (watch for hyper-/hyponatremia). Two things we know: (1) steroids shorten duration of vasopressor support, and (2) they are relatively safe in sepsis. Whether they improve mortality — and in whom — remains open. The Five Pulm PEEPs Pearls Mechanism: Steroids restore catecholamine vascular sensitivity and blunt dysregulated inflammation. The clinical target is vasopressor weaning, not infection treatment. Evidence: Faster shock reversal is the most consistent finding. Mortality benefit is seen in 2 of 4 trials but not the others — still controversial. Some patients likely benefit; we don’t yet know who. Trigger: A practical 2021 threshold is levo/epi ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min for ≥ 4 hours. Newer guidance drops the strict number — make a clinical decision based on poor pressor response or escalation. Dose: Hydrocortisone 200 mg/day (e.g., 50 mg Q6H). Adding fludrocortisone mirrors two trials, but meta-analyses find no benefit over hydrocortisone alone. Safety: Steroids appear safe in sepsis. Monitor and treat hyperglycemia; no marked increase in superinfection. References and Further Reading Annane, Djillali et al. “Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock.” JAMA vol. 288,7 (2002): 862-71. doi:10.1001/jama.288.7.862 Sprung, Charles L et al. “Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock.” The New England journal of medicine vol. 358,2 (2008): 111-24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa071366 Venkatesh, Balasubramanian et al. “Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock.” The New England journal of medicine vol. 378,9 (2018): 797-808. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1705835 Annane, Djillali et al. “Hydrocortisone plus Fludrocortisone for Adults with Septic Shock.” The New England journal of medicine vol. 378,9 (2018): 809-818. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1705716 Sun, Alin et al. “Correction: Hydrocortisone combined with fludrocortisone for treatment of adults with septic shock: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review.” Frontiers in medicine vol. 13 1811616. 2 Mar. 2026, doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1811616 Prescott, Hallie C et al. “Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026.” Critical care medicine vol. 54,4 (2026): 715-724. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000007089

Episode Transcript Hey everyone, Dave Furfaro here from Pulm PEEPs. As you may have noticed in the last few weeks and months, we’ve had a little bit of a decrease in the content that we’ve been putting out, and I just wanted to share a couple things with you about why that is and the future of Pulm PEEPs coming up. In December of 2025, I was diagnosed with a large myxoid liposarcoma in my leg, and since then, I have been undergoing treatment for that. Overall, treatment has been going well, but it’s certainly been a long road that, continues, and I hope that it continues to trend positively. Kristina has been an unbelievable support during this. We have continued to work on some content as a great way and distraction for me at times, but we haven’t been able to keep up the same pace of content that we usually put out. And given everything that is going on, I actually anticipate that will continue for a few months. Ee haven’t said anything so far yet because we were still figuring it out ourselves, but now we just wanted you all to know that, we, love doing Pulm PEEPs. We’re very committed to it. We wanna get back to doing it as consistently as we have been previously, and we plan on doing that, but it likely will be a little bit of time, and this is why. I also may be sharing more about my journey through the medical system as a patient, in the future, but for now, I’m really just focusing on my treatment, my health, and my family. So the summer months will likely be, much slower, maybe even a break off together, and look forward to recovering and getting back to producing more regular Pulm PEEPs content in the Fall. Hope everybody who’s listening is doing well. Thank you all, as always, for being supportive, for listening to the podcast, for reaching out to us on social media, for saying hi to us in person at conferences. It’s been, a true delight, and we can’t wait to get back to business as usual. Okay, everybody. Take good care of patients, be safe, be well, and we’ll see you soon.

We’re excited today to launch our first episode in collaboration with the Irish Thoracic Society and their podcast series. The Irish Thoracic Society represents respiratory professionals throughout Ireland and is dedicated to championing excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, and clinical care of respiratory disease through its work in advocacy, education and research. In today’s episode, we explore the complex and often overlooked world of refractory chronic cough — a condition that can significantly impact patients’ quality of life but is frequently misunderstood or underdiagnosed. With insights from leading respiratory specialists in Ireland and the United States, we discuss the latest thinking on diagnosis, management, and emerging treatments aimed at improving outcomes for patients and helping clinicians navigate this challenging area of respiratory medicine. Joining us are renowned experts Professor Lorcan McGarvey and Professor Brendan Canning, both internationally recognised leaders in respiratory medicine and cough research. Together, they share their perspectives on the neurobiology of chronic cough, the considerable morbidity experienced by patients, and how clinicians can approach diagnostic investigations more effectively. We also explore current treatment strategies and promising new therapies on the horizon as chronic cough increasingly gains recognition as a disease in its own right — rather than simply a symptom. Whether you’re a clinician, researcher, or simply interested in advances in respiratory medicine, this episode offers valuable insights into a condition that is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Meet Our Co-Hosts Marissa O’Callaghan is an Irish trained Respiratory fellow currently undertaking a post-doc fellow working in Erasmus MC Rotterdam in the Netherlands. She finished her Irish respiratory and Internal medicine training and Phd in 2025. Her areas of interest are interstitial and rare lung diseases. She enjoys clinical research, Med Ed, and dreaming up new medical innovations. Together with cohost Sandra Green, she founded the ITS podcast series in June 2024. Marissa O’Callaghan –LinkedIn Sandra Green is an Irish-trained respiratory fellow with a strong track record in climate advocacy and multidisciplinary sustainable initiatives, as co-founder of Irish Doctors for the Environment. She has an MSc in Leadership and Innovation in Healthcare at the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (2023–2025). With Marisssa, she co-founded the Irish Thoracic Society Podcast Productions, launching the platform in 2024 to share knowledge, insights, and innovations in respiratory care. Sandra Green – LinkedIn Meet Our Guests Lorcan McGarvey is a professor of respiratory medicine at the University of Belfast, with a focus on the neurobiology of cough. His research has significantly contributed to the understanding of cough hypersensitivity syndrome and the development of new therapeutic strategies. Lorcan is a respected voice in the field, known for his collaborative work and dedication to advancing respiratory health. Brendan Canning is a distinguished researcher at Johns Hopkins University, specializing in the mechanisms of cough and airway diseases. His pioneering studies on neural pathways and receptor targets have paved the way for novel treatments in refractory chronic cough. Brendan’s expertise and innovative approach make him a key figure in the ongoing efforts to redefine chronic cough management. In This Episode The definitions and classifications of chronic cough, including unexplained, refractory, and unexplained refractory cough The importance of a thorough clinical history and focused diagnostics over exhaustive testing Common causes of chronic cough The role of personalized, multidisciplinary management—combining pharmacologic, speech therapy, and psychological support—to improve quality of life for even the most challenging patients. The concept of cough hypersensitivity syndrome and its role in refractory cases Evidence-based approach to treatment, including pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic options Emerging therapies on the horizon, including novel receptor modulators and neuromodulatory agents and ongoing clinical trials in this rapidly evolving field The impact of chronic cough on mental health, social life, and overall quality of life The importance of reframing chronic cough as a disease entity in its own right References and Further Reading Chung KF, Pavord ID. Prevalence, pathogenesis, and causes of chronic cough. Lancet. 2008;371(9621):1364-1374. Gibson PG, Vertigan AE. Management of chronic refractory cough. BMJ. 2015;351:h5590. Matsumoto H, Kanemitsu Y, Ohe M, Tanaka H, Terada K, Nishi K, et al. Real-world usage and response to gefapixant in refractory chronic cough. ERJ Open Res. 2025;11(4):01037-2024. doi:10.1183/23120541.01037-2024. McGarvey LP, Birring SS. Cough hypersensitivity syndrome: a novel paradigm for understanding cough. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(8):647-656. Morice AH, Millqvist E, Bieksiene K, Birring SS, Dicpinigaitis P, Ribas CD, et al. ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(1):1901136. Parker SM, Smith JA, Birring SS, Chamberlain-Mitchell S, Gruffydd-Jones K, Haines J, et al. British Thoracic Society clinical statement on chronic cough in adults. Thorax. 2023;78(Suppl 1):S3-S19. Smith JA, Woodcock A. Chronic cough. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(2):136-144. Song WJ, Dupont L, Birring SS, Chung KF, Dąbrowska M, Dicpinigaitis P, et al. Consensus goals and standards for specialist cough clinics: the NEUROCOUGH international Delphi study. ERJ Open Res. 2023;9(6):00618-2023. doi:10.1183/23120541.00618-2023. Song WJ, McGarvey L, Cho PSP, Mazzone SB, Chung KF, editors. Chronic cough. Sheffield: European Respiratory Society; 2025.

We are unbelievably excited this week to be reviewing the hot-off-the-presses 2026 Multi-Society (AHA/ACC/ACCP/ACEP/CHEST/SCAI/SHM/SIR/SVM/SVN) Pulmonary Embolism Guidelines with lead author Dr. Mark A. Creager. We will talk about key updates in these guidelines compared to prior practice, including the new risk classification model, and provide an overview from diagnosis to follow-up. Given the clinical importance and prevalence of pulmonary embolism, these guidelines are certainly going to shape practice going forward, so this episode is a can’t miss! Watch the full video of this episode with graphics and helpful teaching visuals on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@pulmpeeps Meet Our Guest Dr. Mark Creager is a Professor of Medicine at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center where he specializes in Cardiovascular Medicine with an emphasis on venous thromboembolic disease. He served as the lead author of the 2026 Pulmonary Embolism Guidelines. Article and Reference Creager MA, Barnes GD, Giri J, Mukherjee D, Jones WS, Burnett AE, Carman T, Casanegra AI, Castellucci LA, Clark SM, Cushman M, de Wit K, Eaves JM, Fang MC, Goldberg JB, Henkin S, Johnston-Cox H, Kadavath S, Kadian-Dodov D, Keeling WB, Klein AJP, Li J, McDaniel MC, Moores LK, Piazza G, Prenger KS, Pugliese SC, Ranade M, Rosovsky RP, Russo F, Secemsky EA, Sista AK, Tefera L, Weinberg I, Westafer LM, Young MN. 2026 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ACEP/CHEST/SCAI/SHM/SIR/SVM/SVN Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Feb 19:S0735-1097(25)10161-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2025.11.005. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41712898. Key Learning Points Why these guidelines matter: This is the first joint AHA/ACC clinical practice guideline specifically on acute PE, bringing together a truly multidisciplinary writing committee (cardiology, pulmonology, hematology, emergency medicine, interventional radiology, surgery, and others). Prior guidelines existed from individual societies, but nothing this comprehensive had been updated in roughly five to six years. New PE clinical categories (A through E): One of the most impactful changes is replacing the old “massive/submassive” and “low/intermediate/high risk” labels with five categories that form a severity continuum. Category A is subclinical (incidental PE found on imaging in asymptomatic patients). Category B covers symptomatic but low-severity patients. Category C is where much of the clinical complexity lives — symptomatic, hemodynamically stable patients subdivided into C1, C2, and C3 based on RV function and biomarkers. Category D represents incipient cardiopulmonary failure (transient hypotension, normotensive shock with end-organ dysfunction). Category E is frank cardiopulmonary failure, with E2 being the sickest — refractory or recurrent cardiac arrest. Respiratory modifiers (hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen) layer onto C, D, and E. Diagnostic approach: Clinical evaluation comes first — history, exam, and validated decision tools (Wells score, revised Geneva, PERC). If clinical probability is low and D-dimer is normal, imaging can be safely avoided. If either is concerning, imaging is warranted. CTPA remains the preferred imaging modality due to superior sensitivity, specificity, wide availability, and ability to assess clot burden and alternative diagnoses. VQ scanning is still appropriate when CTPA is contraindicated, and VQ SPECT offers better reproducibility and specificity than traditional planar VQ if available. Echocardiography is not a diagnostic test for PE but is important for risk stratification — RV size, TAPSE, and tissue Doppler measures all contribute prognostic information. Anticoagulation updates: Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of treatment. For patients potentially needing advanced therapies (C3, D, E), parenteral anticoagulation is started first. A notable recommendation: low molecular weight heparin is generally preferred over unfractionated heparin, based on evidence showing more effective VTE risk reduction, more predictable pharmacokinetics, no need for routine monitoring, lower rates of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and no increase in major bleeding. The committee acknowledged this may create discomfort for clinicians accustomed to unfractionated heparin’s easy reversibility, but the difficulty of achieving and maintaining therapeutic levels with UFH was a significant concern. Advanced therapies: Catheter-based thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, systemic thrombolysis, and surgical embolectomy all received mostly class 2B recommendations (“can consider”) for C3 and D categories, reflecting that current evidence shows improvement in short-term surrogate measures (RV/LV ratio, hemodynamics) but lacks definitive hard outcome data on mortality. For category E1 patients, recommendations are stronger (class 2A). Multiple trials are expected soon — HI-PEITHO, PEERLESS-2, PE-TRACT, PERSEVERE, TORPEDO, and PROG — that should substantially inform future updates. PERT teams: Pulmonary embolism response teams are encouraged, particularly for C3, D, and E patients. They’ve been shown to reduce length of stay. For institutions without PERT capability, establishing consultation networks with larger centers is recommended. Post-PE follow-up: Patients shouldn’t be “left in the wilderness” after discharge. The guidelines recommend communication within the first week to ensure understanding of diagnosis and treatment, an in-person visit at or before three months to assess for persistent symptoms and discuss anticoagulation duration, ongoing surveillance for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease, and periodic reassessment for those on extended anticoagulation. Infographics

Furf and Monty are back with another Pulm PEEPs Pearls episode. The topic of today’s discussion is an often discussed, but often misunderstood, test; the methacholine challenge. They’ll review when to utilize this test, how it should be performed, and the appropriate interpretation. 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 the Test Measures Methacholine challenge is a direct bronchial provocation test of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), a core physiologic feature of asthma. Anyone will bronchoconstrict at high enough concentrations — the test looks for an abnormal threshold. The key endpoint is the PC20: the methacholine concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1. Abnormal in adults: PC20 ≤ 8–16 mg/mL Test Performance Meta-analyses: pooled sensitivity ~60%, specificity ~90%. Real-world cohorts: sensitivity 55–62%, specificity 56–100% (varies by population, protocol, and threshold used). Not a standalone yes/no test — best used as part of a broader diagnostic pathway. Where It Fits in the Asthma Workup The test belongs in a stepwise approach: Step 1: Spirometry + bronchodilator response Step 2: Add FeNO and/or peak flow variability (if available) Step 3: If the picture is still unclear → methacholine challenge It is most useful for symptomatic patients with normal spirometry and no bronchodilator reversibility. Given its cost, mild risk, and discomfort, it should not be a first-line test — most asthma diagnoses do not require it. Technique and Medication Prep Technique ERS guidelines favor tidal breathing over deep inspiratory maneuvers. Deep breaths can be bronchoprotective and blunt the response, reducing sensitivity — especially in mild or well-controlled asthma. Medication Washout (to Avoid False Negatives) Medication ClassWashout PeriodShort-acting beta-agonists (SABA)≥ 6 hoursLong-acting beta-agonists (LABA)~24 hoursUltra-long-acting beta-agonists~48 hoursShort-acting anticholinergics (e.g., ipratropium)~12 hoursLong-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA, e.g., tiotropium)7 days Inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene blockers, and antihistamines do not significantly affect the test acutely — continue these. Withdrawing ICS also carries its own risk for asthma patients. Practical tip: Spell out exactly what to hold and when — for both the patient and the PFT lab — at the time the test is ordered. Interpreting Results Negative Test (PC20 > 16 mg/mL) Very high negative predictive value in symptomatic adults. Makes current asthma quite unlikely (assuming proper test conduct). This is the test’s greatest strength: it is an excellent rule-out test. Positive Test (PC20 ≤ 8–16 mg/mL) More nuanced — airway hyperresponsiveness is not unique to asthma. Can be positive in: chronic cough, allergic rhinitis, COPD, and even some healthy asymptomatic individuals. A positive result raises probability but must be interpreted alongside the clinical story, variable respiratory symptoms, peak flow variability, FeNO, and ICS response. Safety and Risks Overall, the test is quite safe; significant adverse effects are rare. Temporary breathing discomfort is expected (bronchoconstriction is being induced). Severe bronchospasm is possible: A trained clinician should be available; SABA inhaler/nebulizer must be immediately on hand; a physician should be reachable in the facility. Contraindications / cautions: Avoid if FEV1 < 70% predicted or < 1–1.5 L (baseline obstruction greatly increases risk). Avoid within 3 months of an acute cardiac event (rare risk of cardiac events with unstable cardiac disease). Five Pearls — Quick Recap What it tests: Methacholine challenge is a direct test of AHR with high specificity but variable sensitivity — it belongs inside a diagnostic pathway, not as a standalone asthma test. When to use it: Most useful for symptomatic patients with normal spirometry and no bronchodilator response, after FeNO and peak flow variability have been considered. Technique and meds matter: Use tidal breathing protocol; respect washout intervals — especially the 7-day LAMA washout and 24–48 hour LABA window — to avoid false negatives. Safety: Generally safe, but can induce significant bronchoconstriction. Have a SABA available and avoid the test in patients with FEV1 < 70% predicted. Interpretation: A negative test (PC20 > 16 mg/mL) strongly argues against current asthma. A positive test raises probability but is not specific — interpret alongside the full clinical picture. References and Further Reading Coates AL, Wanger J, Cockcroft DW, Culver BH; Bronchoprovocation Testing Task Force: Kai-Håkon Carlsen; Diamant Z, Gauvreau G, Hall GL, Hallstrand TS, Horvath I, de Jongh FHC, Joos G, Kaminsky DA, Laube BL, Leuppi JD, Sterk PJ. ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge testing: general considerations and performance of methacholine challenge tests. Eur Respir J. 2017 May 1;49(5):1601526. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01526-2016. PMID: 28461290. Lee, J., & Song, J. U. (2021). Diagnostic comparison of methacholine and mannitol bronchial challenge tests for identifying bronchial hyperresponsiveness in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Asthma, 58(7), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2020.1739704 Davis BE, Blais CM, Cockcroft DW. Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology. J Asthma Allergy. 2018 May 14;11:89-99. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S160607. PMID: 29785128; PMCID: PMC5957064.

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.​

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: <5% Intermediate: 5–20% High: >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.

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).

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.