User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
ILD risk elevated in RA, PsA after starting biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
AT EULAR 2023
Warning on use of sotorasib after ICI in lung cancer
because of the risk of increased toxicity.
Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.
Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.
The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.
The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.
“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.
The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.
The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Actionable findings
“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.
The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”
Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.
Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”
Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”
Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.
Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.
Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”
As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
Study details
The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”
Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.
Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.
Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.
Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.
In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.
The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.
The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
because of the risk of increased toxicity.
Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.
Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.
The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.
The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.
“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.
The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.
The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Actionable findings
“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.
The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”
Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.
Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”
Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”
Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.
Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.
Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”
As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
Study details
The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”
Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.
Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.
Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.
Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.
In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.
The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.
The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
because of the risk of increased toxicity.
Sotorasib is indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who carry a KRASG12C mutation, which occurs in about 13% of cases.
Since its approval in 2021, sotorasib has emerged as “a new standard of care” for such patients after chemotherapy and anti–PD-L1 failure, the investigators say.
The new warning comes after the team compared 48 patients who received an anti–PD-L1 – most often pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy – before sotorasib with a control group of 54 patients who either didn’t receive an anti–PD-L1 before sotorasib or had at least one other treatment in between.
The team found that sequential anti–PD-L1 and sotorasib therapy significantly increased the risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and also the risk of non-liver adverse events, typically in patients who received sotorasib within 30 days of an anti–PD-L1.
“We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti–PD-(L)1 infusion,” say senior author Michaël Duruisseaux, MD, PhD, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, and collegues.
The findings should also “prompt a close monitoring for the development of hepatotoxicity and non-liver AEs [in] patients who receive sotorasib after anti–PD-(L)1,” they add.
The study was published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Actionable findings
“I consider the results to be highly credible and informative to my own practice,” said Jack West, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the City of Hope outside of Los Angeles, said in an interview.
The findings “may lead me to favor a trial of docetaxel as an intervening therapy for patients who have very recently discontinued immunotherapy, deferring sotorasib at least a few weeks and ideally several months,” Dr. West commented. “I think this is a particularly reasonable approach when we remember that sotorasib conferred no improvement in overall survival at all over docetaxel in the CodeBreaK 200 trial in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC.”
Overall, the study “corroborates what we’ve seen in the limited first-line experience of sotorasib combined with immunotherapy and also echoes our experience of other targeted therapies, such as osimertinib administered in the weeks just after patients received immunotherapy, which is known to be associated with life-threatening pneumonitis,” he said.
Jared Weiss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that given the long half-life of immune checkpoint inhibitors, “it is quite understandable that the toxicity challenges we previously saw with concurrent administration of immunotherapy and certain targeted therapies would be recapitulated in patients who had a relatively short interval between prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and sotorasib.”
Even so, because of the aggressiveness of NSCLC, long treatment delays between immunotherapy and sotorasib therapy are “not a favored option.”
Like Dr. West, Dr. Weiss said docetaxel (with or without ramucirumab) is a sound intervening alternative.
Another option is to use adagrasib in the second line instead of sotorasib, Dr. Weiss suggested. It’s also a KRASG12C inhibitor but hasn’t so far been associated with severe hepatotoxicity, he said.
Hossein Borghaei, DO, a thoracic medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agrees with his colleagues and thinks that what the French team found “is real.”
As the investigators suggest, “it might be that sotorasib leads to an inflammatory microenvironment that causes hepatotoxicity in the presence of a checkpoint inhibitor. In that case,” a lower dose of sotorasib might help reduce toxicity while remaining effective, Dr. Broghaei suggested.
Study details
The French team was prompted to investigate the issue by a report of life-threatening hepatitis in a patient with NSCLC for whom sotorasib therapy was initiated 14 weeks after treatment with pembrolizumab, as well as by “the long story of adverse events ... observed with sequential use of [immune checkpoint inhibitors] and targeted therapy.”
Like Dr. Weiss, they note that severe hepatotoxicity after anti–PD-L1 therapy has not, to date, been reported for other KRASG12C inhibitors.
Patients in the study were treated outside of clinical trials at 16 medical centers in France.
Half of the patients (24/48) who were treated immediately with an anti–PD-L1 after sotorasib therapy developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib-related adverse events, including 16 (33%) with severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe diarrhea and fatigue were also more frequent with sequential therapy.
Severe events typically occurred within 30 days of the last anti–PD-L1 infusion and to a lesser extent within 31-60 days.
In the control arm, the rate of severe sotorasib-related adverse events was 13% (7/54). Six patients (11%) experienced severe hepatotoxicity. There was one sotorasib-related death in the sequential therapy arm, which was due to toxic epidermal necrosis. No deaths occurred in the control group.
The two groups were balanced with respect to history of daily alcohol consumption and the presence of liver metastasis. More patients in the control arm had a history of hepatobiliary disease.
The study received no outside funding. Many of the authors report ties with pharmaceutical companies, including to Amgen, the maker of sotorasib, and Mirati Therapeutics, the maker of adagrasib. Dr. Weiss was an adagrasib investigator for Mirati. Dr. West is a regular contribiutor to Medscape and is an adviser for Amgen and Mirati as well as a speaker for Amgen. Dr. Borghaei reported extensive company ties. He has received research support, travel funding, and consulting fees from Amgen as well as consulting fees from Mirati.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
Ancient plague, cyclical pandemics … history lesson?
Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge
We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.
Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.
The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.
Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.
Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.
Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence
This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.
The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.
How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.
“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.
There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
Talk about your field promotions
If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.
That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.
Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.
The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.
The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.
Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?
Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge
We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.
Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.
The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.
Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.
Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.
Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence
This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.
The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.
How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.
“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.
There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
Talk about your field promotions
If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.
That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.
Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.
The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.
The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.
Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?
Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge
We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.
Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.
The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.
Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.
Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.
Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence
This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.
The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.
How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.
“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.
There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
Talk about your field promotions
If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.
That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.
Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.
The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.
The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.
Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?
Endobronchial valves: Sustained improvement in emphysema
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ATS 2023
Standard measure may underestimate OSA in Black patients
Measurement error may be the culprit in underdiagnosing obstructive sleep apnea in Black patients, compared with White patients, based on data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
, according to Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We wanted to examine the implications for obstructive sleep apnea,” which is often caused by a reduction in air flow, Dr. Azarbarzin said in an interview.
In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, Dr. Azarbarzin and colleagues examined data from 1,955 adults who were enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Exam 5. The study participants underwent unattended 15-channel polysomnography that included a finger pulse oximeter. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 years, and 53.7% were women. A total of 12.1%, 23.7%, 27.7%, and 36.5% of the participants were Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White, respectively.
Apnea hypopnea index (AHI3P) was similar between Black and White patients, at approximately 19 events per hour. Black participants had higher wake SpO2, higher current smoking rates, and higher body mass index, compared with White participants, but these differences were not significant.
Severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was based on the hypoxic burden, which was defined as the total area under the respiratory curve. The total ventilatory burden was defined as the event-specific area under the ventilation signal and identified by amplitude changes in the nasal pressure signal. The researchers then calculated desaturation sensitivity (the primary outcome) as hypoxic burden divided by ventilatory burden.
In an unadjusted analysis, desaturation sensitivity was significantly lower in Black patients and Asian patients, compared with White patients (P < .001 and P < .02, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and time spent in a supine position, desaturation sensitivity was lower only in Black patients, compared with White patients, and this difference persisted in both men and women.
The difference in desaturation sensitivity by race could be caused by differences in physiology or in measurement error, Dr. Azarbarzin told this news organization. If measurement error is the culprit, “we may be underestimating OSA severity in [Black people],” especially in Black women, he said.
However, more research is needed to understand the potential impact of both physiology and device accuracy on differences in oxygen saturation across ethnicities and to effectively identify and treat OSA in all patients, Dr. Azarbarzin said.
The MESA Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Data from MESA were obtained through support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Azarbarzin disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Health Association, and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Measurement error may be the culprit in underdiagnosing obstructive sleep apnea in Black patients, compared with White patients, based on data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
, according to Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We wanted to examine the implications for obstructive sleep apnea,” which is often caused by a reduction in air flow, Dr. Azarbarzin said in an interview.
In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, Dr. Azarbarzin and colleagues examined data from 1,955 adults who were enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Exam 5. The study participants underwent unattended 15-channel polysomnography that included a finger pulse oximeter. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 years, and 53.7% were women. A total of 12.1%, 23.7%, 27.7%, and 36.5% of the participants were Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White, respectively.
Apnea hypopnea index (AHI3P) was similar between Black and White patients, at approximately 19 events per hour. Black participants had higher wake SpO2, higher current smoking rates, and higher body mass index, compared with White participants, but these differences were not significant.
Severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was based on the hypoxic burden, which was defined as the total area under the respiratory curve. The total ventilatory burden was defined as the event-specific area under the ventilation signal and identified by amplitude changes in the nasal pressure signal. The researchers then calculated desaturation sensitivity (the primary outcome) as hypoxic burden divided by ventilatory burden.
In an unadjusted analysis, desaturation sensitivity was significantly lower in Black patients and Asian patients, compared with White patients (P < .001 and P < .02, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and time spent in a supine position, desaturation sensitivity was lower only in Black patients, compared with White patients, and this difference persisted in both men and women.
The difference in desaturation sensitivity by race could be caused by differences in physiology or in measurement error, Dr. Azarbarzin told this news organization. If measurement error is the culprit, “we may be underestimating OSA severity in [Black people],” especially in Black women, he said.
However, more research is needed to understand the potential impact of both physiology and device accuracy on differences in oxygen saturation across ethnicities and to effectively identify and treat OSA in all patients, Dr. Azarbarzin said.
The MESA Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Data from MESA were obtained through support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Azarbarzin disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Health Association, and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Measurement error may be the culprit in underdiagnosing obstructive sleep apnea in Black patients, compared with White patients, based on data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
, according to Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We wanted to examine the implications for obstructive sleep apnea,” which is often caused by a reduction in air flow, Dr. Azarbarzin said in an interview.
In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, Dr. Azarbarzin and colleagues examined data from 1,955 adults who were enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Exam 5. The study participants underwent unattended 15-channel polysomnography that included a finger pulse oximeter. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 years, and 53.7% were women. A total of 12.1%, 23.7%, 27.7%, and 36.5% of the participants were Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White, respectively.
Apnea hypopnea index (AHI3P) was similar between Black and White patients, at approximately 19 events per hour. Black participants had higher wake SpO2, higher current smoking rates, and higher body mass index, compared with White participants, but these differences were not significant.
Severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was based on the hypoxic burden, which was defined as the total area under the respiratory curve. The total ventilatory burden was defined as the event-specific area under the ventilation signal and identified by amplitude changes in the nasal pressure signal. The researchers then calculated desaturation sensitivity (the primary outcome) as hypoxic burden divided by ventilatory burden.
In an unadjusted analysis, desaturation sensitivity was significantly lower in Black patients and Asian patients, compared with White patients (P < .001 and P < .02, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and time spent in a supine position, desaturation sensitivity was lower only in Black patients, compared with White patients, and this difference persisted in both men and women.
The difference in desaturation sensitivity by race could be caused by differences in physiology or in measurement error, Dr. Azarbarzin told this news organization. If measurement error is the culprit, “we may be underestimating OSA severity in [Black people],” especially in Black women, he said.
However, more research is needed to understand the potential impact of both physiology and device accuracy on differences in oxygen saturation across ethnicities and to effectively identify and treat OSA in all patients, Dr. Azarbarzin said.
The MESA Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Data from MESA were obtained through support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Azarbarzin disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Health Association, and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ATS 2023
States move to curb insurers’ prior authorization requirements as federal reforms lag
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.
“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.
Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.
Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.
The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.
United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.
However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.
Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.
An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.
Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.
Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
States aim to reduce prior authorization volume
The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”
The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.
Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.
“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.
The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.
The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.
The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.
California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
How do gold cards work?
Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.
The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.
Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.
California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.
“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.
However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.
The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.
He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.
In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.
Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.
He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.
Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.
“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Circulatory support for RV failure caused by pulmonary embolism
A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.
Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.
When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.
Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.
Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
Percutaneous devices
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.
The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.
There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
Benefits of PERT
One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.
Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.
Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.
When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.
Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.
Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
Percutaneous devices
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.
The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.
There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
Benefits of PERT
One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.
Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.
Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.
When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.
Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.
Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
Percutaneous devices
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.
The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.
There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
Benefits of PERT
One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.
Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY CLINICS
People still want their medical intelligence in human form
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Sublingual immunotherapy stops onset and worsening of asthma
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Counting electric sheep: Dreaming of AI in sleep medicine
“Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare refers to the use of machine learning (ML), deep learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to process and analyze large amounts of health care data.”
The preceding line is a direct quote from ChatGPT when prompted with the question “What is AI in health care?” (OpenAI, 2022). AI has rapidly infiltrated our lives. From using facial recognition software to unlock our cellphones to scrolling through targeted media suggested by streaming services, our daily existence is interwoven with algorithms. With the recent introduction of GPT-3 (the model that powers ChatGPT) in late 2022 and its even more capable successor, GPT-4, in March 2023, AI will continue to dominate our everyday environment in even more complex and meaningful ways.
For sleep medicine, the initial applications of AI in this field have been innovative and promising. (OSA) (Bandyopadhyay A, et al. Sleep Breath. 2023;27[1]:39). Pépin and colleagues (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[1]:e1919657) combined ML with mandibular movement to diagnose OSA with a reasonable agreement to polysomnography as a novel home-based alternative for diagnosis. AI has also been used to predict adherence to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy in OSA (Scioscia G, et al. Inform Health Soc Care. 2022;47[3]:274) and as a digital intervention tool accessed via a smartphone app for people with insomnia (Philip P, et al, J Med Internet Res. 2020;22[12]:e24268). The data-rich field of sleep medicine is primed for further advancements through AI, albeit with a few hurdles and regulations to overcome before becoming mainstream.
Future promise
Sleep medicine is uniquely positioned to develop robust AI algorithms because of its vast data trove. Using AI, scientists can efficiently analyze the raw data from polysomnography, consumer sleep technology (CST), and nightly remote monitoring (from PAP devices) to substantially improve comprehension and management of sleep disorders.
AI can redefine OSA through analysis of the big data available, rather than solely relying on the apnea-hypopnea index. In addition, novel variables such as facial structure; snoring index; temperature trends; and sleep environment, position, and timing using a camera-based contactless technology may be incorporated to enhance the diagnostic accuracy for OSA or better describe sleep quality. AI algorithms can also be embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate screening for sleep disorders using patient characteristics, thus accelerating the recognition and evaluation of possible sleep disorders.
New ways of collecting data may deliver deeper insights into sleep health, as well. CST such as wearables, nearables, and phone applications are improving with each iteration, resulting in more data about sleep for millions of people over thousands of nights.
AI can help achieve precision medicine by integrating multimodal data to establish endotypes and phenotypes of various sleep disorders. Delineating endotypes and phenotypes allows for personalized treatment recommendations, which may improve patient adherence and health outcomes.
Treatment personalization can also be achieved through AI by predicting compliance to various therapies and responses, as well as by discovering alternative forms of delivery to accomplish desired health outcomes. For example, to predict PAP compliance, we can record a patient encounter and use natural language processing to analyze their opinion of their treatment, extracting relevant keywords and combining such processing with other available data, such as environmental factors, sleep schedule, medical history, and other information extracted from the EHR. As another example, AI can determine the optimal time for cancer therapy by predicting a patient’s circadian timing (Hesse J, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12[11]:3103). Circadian timing of drug delivery may be relevant in other specialties including cardiovascular disease, endocrine disorders, and psychiatric conditions due to its associations with sleep. Integration of the various “-omics” (eg, proteomics, genomics, and transcriptomics) with physiologic, behavioral, and environmental data can offer opportunities for drug discovery and possible prediction of sleep disorders and sleep-related morbidity. Although generative pretrained transformers are currently used to predict text (ie, ChatGPT), it is theoretically possible to also apply this technique to identify patients at risk for future sleep disorders from an earlier age.
Challenges to an AI renaissance
Despite making strides in numerous specialties such as radiology, ophthalmology, pathology, oncology, and dermatology, AI has not yet gained mainstream usage. Why isn’t AI as ubiquitous and heavily entrenched in health care as it is in other industries? According to the National Academy of Medicine’s AI in Healthcare: The Hope, The Hype, The Promise, The Peril, there are several realities to address before we fully embrace the AI revolution (Matheny M, et al. 2019).
First, AI algorithms should be trained on quality data that are representative of the population. Interoperability between health care systems and standardization across platforms is required to access large volumes of quality data. The current framework for data gathering is limited due to regulations, patient privacy concerns, and organizational preferences. The challenges to data acquisition and standardization of information will continue to snarl progress unless there are legislative remedies.
Furthermore, datasets should be diverse enough to avoid introducing bias into the AI algorithm. If the dataset is limited and health inequities (eg, societal bias and social determinants of health) are excluded from the training set, then the outcome will perpetuate further explicit and implicit biases.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and authorizes AI/ML-enabled devices. Its current regulatory structure treats AI as a static process and does not allow for exercise of its intrinsic ability to continuously learn from additional data, thereby preventing it from becoming more accurate and evolving with the population over time. A more flexible approach is needed.
Lastly, recent advanced AI algorithms including deep learning and neural network methodology function like a “black box.” The models are not explainable or transparent. Without clear comprehension of its methods, acceptance in clinical practice will be guarded and further risk of inherent biases may ensue.
A path forward
But these challenges, like any, can be overcome. Research in the area of differential privacy and the adoption of recent data-sharing standards (eg, HL7 FHIR) can facilitate access to training data (Saripalle R, et al. J Biomed Inform. 2019;94:103188). Regulators are also open to incorporating feedback from the AI research community and industry in favor of innovation in this frenetic domain. The FDA developed the AI/ML Software as a Medical Device Action Plan in response to stakeholder feedback for oversight (FDA, 2021). Specifically, the “Good Machine Learning Practice” will be developed to describe AI/ML best practices (eg, data management, training, interpretability, evaluation, and documentation) to guide product development and standardization.
Sleep medicine has significantly progressed over the last several decades. Rather than maintain the status quo, AI can help fill the existing knowledge gaps, augment clinical practice, and streamline operations by analyzing and processing data at a volume and efficiency beyond human capacity. Fallibility is inevitable in machines and humans; however, like humans, machines can improve with continued training and exposure.
We asked ChatGPT about the future of AI in sleep medicine. It states that AI could have a “significant impact” on sleep disorders diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and sleep tracking and monitoring. Only time will tell if its claims are accurate.
Dr. Tan is Clinical Associate Professor with the Division of Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Bhargava is Clinical Professor with the Division of Pediatric Pulmonary, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
“Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare refers to the use of machine learning (ML), deep learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to process and analyze large amounts of health care data.”
The preceding line is a direct quote from ChatGPT when prompted with the question “What is AI in health care?” (OpenAI, 2022). AI has rapidly infiltrated our lives. From using facial recognition software to unlock our cellphones to scrolling through targeted media suggested by streaming services, our daily existence is interwoven with algorithms. With the recent introduction of GPT-3 (the model that powers ChatGPT) in late 2022 and its even more capable successor, GPT-4, in March 2023, AI will continue to dominate our everyday environment in even more complex and meaningful ways.
For sleep medicine, the initial applications of AI in this field have been innovative and promising. (OSA) (Bandyopadhyay A, et al. Sleep Breath. 2023;27[1]:39). Pépin and colleagues (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[1]:e1919657) combined ML with mandibular movement to diagnose OSA with a reasonable agreement to polysomnography as a novel home-based alternative for diagnosis. AI has also been used to predict adherence to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy in OSA (Scioscia G, et al. Inform Health Soc Care. 2022;47[3]:274) and as a digital intervention tool accessed via a smartphone app for people with insomnia (Philip P, et al, J Med Internet Res. 2020;22[12]:e24268). The data-rich field of sleep medicine is primed for further advancements through AI, albeit with a few hurdles and regulations to overcome before becoming mainstream.
Future promise
Sleep medicine is uniquely positioned to develop robust AI algorithms because of its vast data trove. Using AI, scientists can efficiently analyze the raw data from polysomnography, consumer sleep technology (CST), and nightly remote monitoring (from PAP devices) to substantially improve comprehension and management of sleep disorders.
AI can redefine OSA through analysis of the big data available, rather than solely relying on the apnea-hypopnea index. In addition, novel variables such as facial structure; snoring index; temperature trends; and sleep environment, position, and timing using a camera-based contactless technology may be incorporated to enhance the diagnostic accuracy for OSA or better describe sleep quality. AI algorithms can also be embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate screening for sleep disorders using patient characteristics, thus accelerating the recognition and evaluation of possible sleep disorders.
New ways of collecting data may deliver deeper insights into sleep health, as well. CST such as wearables, nearables, and phone applications are improving with each iteration, resulting in more data about sleep for millions of people over thousands of nights.
AI can help achieve precision medicine by integrating multimodal data to establish endotypes and phenotypes of various sleep disorders. Delineating endotypes and phenotypes allows for personalized treatment recommendations, which may improve patient adherence and health outcomes.
Treatment personalization can also be achieved through AI by predicting compliance to various therapies and responses, as well as by discovering alternative forms of delivery to accomplish desired health outcomes. For example, to predict PAP compliance, we can record a patient encounter and use natural language processing to analyze their opinion of their treatment, extracting relevant keywords and combining such processing with other available data, such as environmental factors, sleep schedule, medical history, and other information extracted from the EHR. As another example, AI can determine the optimal time for cancer therapy by predicting a patient’s circadian timing (Hesse J, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12[11]:3103). Circadian timing of drug delivery may be relevant in other specialties including cardiovascular disease, endocrine disorders, and psychiatric conditions due to its associations with sleep. Integration of the various “-omics” (eg, proteomics, genomics, and transcriptomics) with physiologic, behavioral, and environmental data can offer opportunities for drug discovery and possible prediction of sleep disorders and sleep-related morbidity. Although generative pretrained transformers are currently used to predict text (ie, ChatGPT), it is theoretically possible to also apply this technique to identify patients at risk for future sleep disorders from an earlier age.
Challenges to an AI renaissance
Despite making strides in numerous specialties such as radiology, ophthalmology, pathology, oncology, and dermatology, AI has not yet gained mainstream usage. Why isn’t AI as ubiquitous and heavily entrenched in health care as it is in other industries? According to the National Academy of Medicine’s AI in Healthcare: The Hope, The Hype, The Promise, The Peril, there are several realities to address before we fully embrace the AI revolution (Matheny M, et al. 2019).
First, AI algorithms should be trained on quality data that are representative of the population. Interoperability between health care systems and standardization across platforms is required to access large volumes of quality data. The current framework for data gathering is limited due to regulations, patient privacy concerns, and organizational preferences. The challenges to data acquisition and standardization of information will continue to snarl progress unless there are legislative remedies.
Furthermore, datasets should be diverse enough to avoid introducing bias into the AI algorithm. If the dataset is limited and health inequities (eg, societal bias and social determinants of health) are excluded from the training set, then the outcome will perpetuate further explicit and implicit biases.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and authorizes AI/ML-enabled devices. Its current regulatory structure treats AI as a static process and does not allow for exercise of its intrinsic ability to continuously learn from additional data, thereby preventing it from becoming more accurate and evolving with the population over time. A more flexible approach is needed.
Lastly, recent advanced AI algorithms including deep learning and neural network methodology function like a “black box.” The models are not explainable or transparent. Without clear comprehension of its methods, acceptance in clinical practice will be guarded and further risk of inherent biases may ensue.
A path forward
But these challenges, like any, can be overcome. Research in the area of differential privacy and the adoption of recent data-sharing standards (eg, HL7 FHIR) can facilitate access to training data (Saripalle R, et al. J Biomed Inform. 2019;94:103188). Regulators are also open to incorporating feedback from the AI research community and industry in favor of innovation in this frenetic domain. The FDA developed the AI/ML Software as a Medical Device Action Plan in response to stakeholder feedback for oversight (FDA, 2021). Specifically, the “Good Machine Learning Practice” will be developed to describe AI/ML best practices (eg, data management, training, interpretability, evaluation, and documentation) to guide product development and standardization.
Sleep medicine has significantly progressed over the last several decades. Rather than maintain the status quo, AI can help fill the existing knowledge gaps, augment clinical practice, and streamline operations by analyzing and processing data at a volume and efficiency beyond human capacity. Fallibility is inevitable in machines and humans; however, like humans, machines can improve with continued training and exposure.
We asked ChatGPT about the future of AI in sleep medicine. It states that AI could have a “significant impact” on sleep disorders diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and sleep tracking and monitoring. Only time will tell if its claims are accurate.
Dr. Tan is Clinical Associate Professor with the Division of Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Bhargava is Clinical Professor with the Division of Pediatric Pulmonary, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
“Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare refers to the use of machine learning (ML), deep learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to process and analyze large amounts of health care data.”
The preceding line is a direct quote from ChatGPT when prompted with the question “What is AI in health care?” (OpenAI, 2022). AI has rapidly infiltrated our lives. From using facial recognition software to unlock our cellphones to scrolling through targeted media suggested by streaming services, our daily existence is interwoven with algorithms. With the recent introduction of GPT-3 (the model that powers ChatGPT) in late 2022 and its even more capable successor, GPT-4, in March 2023, AI will continue to dominate our everyday environment in even more complex and meaningful ways.
For sleep medicine, the initial applications of AI in this field have been innovative and promising. (OSA) (Bandyopadhyay A, et al. Sleep Breath. 2023;27[1]:39). Pépin and colleagues (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[1]:e1919657) combined ML with mandibular movement to diagnose OSA with a reasonable agreement to polysomnography as a novel home-based alternative for diagnosis. AI has also been used to predict adherence to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy in OSA (Scioscia G, et al. Inform Health Soc Care. 2022;47[3]:274) and as a digital intervention tool accessed via a smartphone app for people with insomnia (Philip P, et al, J Med Internet Res. 2020;22[12]:e24268). The data-rich field of sleep medicine is primed for further advancements through AI, albeit with a few hurdles and regulations to overcome before becoming mainstream.
Future promise
Sleep medicine is uniquely positioned to develop robust AI algorithms because of its vast data trove. Using AI, scientists can efficiently analyze the raw data from polysomnography, consumer sleep technology (CST), and nightly remote monitoring (from PAP devices) to substantially improve comprehension and management of sleep disorders.
AI can redefine OSA through analysis of the big data available, rather than solely relying on the apnea-hypopnea index. In addition, novel variables such as facial structure; snoring index; temperature trends; and sleep environment, position, and timing using a camera-based contactless technology may be incorporated to enhance the diagnostic accuracy for OSA or better describe sleep quality. AI algorithms can also be embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate screening for sleep disorders using patient characteristics, thus accelerating the recognition and evaluation of possible sleep disorders.
New ways of collecting data may deliver deeper insights into sleep health, as well. CST such as wearables, nearables, and phone applications are improving with each iteration, resulting in more data about sleep for millions of people over thousands of nights.
AI can help achieve precision medicine by integrating multimodal data to establish endotypes and phenotypes of various sleep disorders. Delineating endotypes and phenotypes allows for personalized treatment recommendations, which may improve patient adherence and health outcomes.
Treatment personalization can also be achieved through AI by predicting compliance to various therapies and responses, as well as by discovering alternative forms of delivery to accomplish desired health outcomes. For example, to predict PAP compliance, we can record a patient encounter and use natural language processing to analyze their opinion of their treatment, extracting relevant keywords and combining such processing with other available data, such as environmental factors, sleep schedule, medical history, and other information extracted from the EHR. As another example, AI can determine the optimal time for cancer therapy by predicting a patient’s circadian timing (Hesse J, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12[11]:3103). Circadian timing of drug delivery may be relevant in other specialties including cardiovascular disease, endocrine disorders, and psychiatric conditions due to its associations with sleep. Integration of the various “-omics” (eg, proteomics, genomics, and transcriptomics) with physiologic, behavioral, and environmental data can offer opportunities for drug discovery and possible prediction of sleep disorders and sleep-related morbidity. Although generative pretrained transformers are currently used to predict text (ie, ChatGPT), it is theoretically possible to also apply this technique to identify patients at risk for future sleep disorders from an earlier age.
Challenges to an AI renaissance
Despite making strides in numerous specialties such as radiology, ophthalmology, pathology, oncology, and dermatology, AI has not yet gained mainstream usage. Why isn’t AI as ubiquitous and heavily entrenched in health care as it is in other industries? According to the National Academy of Medicine’s AI in Healthcare: The Hope, The Hype, The Promise, The Peril, there are several realities to address before we fully embrace the AI revolution (Matheny M, et al. 2019).
First, AI algorithms should be trained on quality data that are representative of the population. Interoperability between health care systems and standardization across platforms is required to access large volumes of quality data. The current framework for data gathering is limited due to regulations, patient privacy concerns, and organizational preferences. The challenges to data acquisition and standardization of information will continue to snarl progress unless there are legislative remedies.
Furthermore, datasets should be diverse enough to avoid introducing bias into the AI algorithm. If the dataset is limited and health inequities (eg, societal bias and social determinants of health) are excluded from the training set, then the outcome will perpetuate further explicit and implicit biases.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and authorizes AI/ML-enabled devices. Its current regulatory structure treats AI as a static process and does not allow for exercise of its intrinsic ability to continuously learn from additional data, thereby preventing it from becoming more accurate and evolving with the population over time. A more flexible approach is needed.
Lastly, recent advanced AI algorithms including deep learning and neural network methodology function like a “black box.” The models are not explainable or transparent. Without clear comprehension of its methods, acceptance in clinical practice will be guarded and further risk of inherent biases may ensue.
A path forward
But these challenges, like any, can be overcome. Research in the area of differential privacy and the adoption of recent data-sharing standards (eg, HL7 FHIR) can facilitate access to training data (Saripalle R, et al. J Biomed Inform. 2019;94:103188). Regulators are also open to incorporating feedback from the AI research community and industry in favor of innovation in this frenetic domain. The FDA developed the AI/ML Software as a Medical Device Action Plan in response to stakeholder feedback for oversight (FDA, 2021). Specifically, the “Good Machine Learning Practice” will be developed to describe AI/ML best practices (eg, data management, training, interpretability, evaluation, and documentation) to guide product development and standardization.
Sleep medicine has significantly progressed over the last several decades. Rather than maintain the status quo, AI can help fill the existing knowledge gaps, augment clinical practice, and streamline operations by analyzing and processing data at a volume and efficiency beyond human capacity. Fallibility is inevitable in machines and humans; however, like humans, machines can improve with continued training and exposure.
We asked ChatGPT about the future of AI in sleep medicine. It states that AI could have a “significant impact” on sleep disorders diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and sleep tracking and monitoring. Only time will tell if its claims are accurate.
Dr. Tan is Clinical Associate Professor with the Division of Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Bhargava is Clinical Professor with the Division of Pediatric Pulmonary, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine.