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')]
What will vaping lead to? Emerging research shows damage, and addiction
Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”
Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.
He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.
“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.
Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.
But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.
“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”
A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.
Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.
“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”
Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.
Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.
Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.
Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.
“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.
For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.
Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.
Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”
One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.
“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.
The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.
The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.
But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.
Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”
Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.
“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.
Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.
“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.
Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.
“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”
But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.
“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
Will vaping be a ‘phase?’
Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.
“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”
But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.
“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”
Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”
Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.
He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.
“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.
Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.
But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.
“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”
A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.
Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.
“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”
Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.
Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.
Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.
Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.
“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.
For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.
Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.
Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”
One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.
“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.
The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.
The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.
But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.
Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”
Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.
“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.
Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.
“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.
Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.
“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”
But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.
“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
Will vaping be a ‘phase?’
Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.
“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”
But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.
“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”
Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”
Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.
He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.
“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.
Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.
But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.
“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”
A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.
Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.
“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”
Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.
Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.
Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.
Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.
“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.
For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.
Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.
Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”
One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.
“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.
The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.
The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.
But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.
Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”
Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.
“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.
Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.
“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.
Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.
“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”
But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.
“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
Will vaping be a ‘phase?’
Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.
“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”
But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.
“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”
Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should you recommend e-cigs to help patients quit smoking?
In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.
For 7 years, she vaped every day.
Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.
Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.
“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.
Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.
“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
Vaping to quit
The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.
Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.
A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.
“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.
But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.
“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.
Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.
“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.
“ Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
Reducing harm and improving health?
Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.
“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”
The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.
But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”
Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.
Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.
“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”
But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.
About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.
Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.
“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”
Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.
“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.
For 7 years, she vaped every day.
Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.
Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.
“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.
Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.
“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
Vaping to quit
The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.
Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.
A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.
“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.
But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.
“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.
Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.
“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.
“ Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
Reducing harm and improving health?
Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.
“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”
The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.
But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”
Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.
Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.
“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”
But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.
About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.
Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.
“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”
Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.
“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2014, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, Kati Markowitz decided to switch to vaping. She had heard the newer electronic cigarettes might be less harmful. And, at the time, she said, she wasn’t aware of other options to try to quit smoking.
For 7 years, she vaped every day.
Then Ms. Markowitz received news she’d hoped never to hear: She had lung cancer. A nodule detected in a CT scan had grown. She was scheduled for treatment – the removal of an entire lobe from her right lung. But first, she said, her surgeon told her she had to quit vaping, which reduces the risk for post-operative complications and enables a healthy recovery.
Ms. Markowitz had thought switching to vaping would be less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Now, she no longer believes that’s true.
“Did I fool myself by hoping to get lucky and not have any bad repercussions? Yes, I did,” Ms. Markowitz said, adding that she wonders if vaping contributed to her lung cancer or if she’ll experience other negative health effects in the future.
Researchers are divided on if e-cigarettes are as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement therapies like gums and lozenges. They also say more research is needed on the long-term health impacts of vaping to ultimately determine if vapes are a safe replacement for cigarettes.
“There is scientific research to support vaping as a cessation tool, but we wouldn’t use it as a first line of defense because we still need longitudinal studies to understand the long-term risk of e-cigarettes,” said Monica Hanna, MPH, assistant director of the Nicotine and Tobacco Recovery Program at RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, Eatontown, N.J. “We also need research to understand exactly how we could use e-cigarettes as a cessation device.”
Vaping to quit
The first prototypes of e-cigarettes were developed in the 1930s, although what are now known as vapes weren’t sold by manufacturers until the 2000s in the United States, following an invention by a former health official in China. The vape was touted by both researchers and manufacturers over the years of development as a way to quit smoking cigarettes.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a nonprofit group that supports vaping and accepts donations from the e-cigarette industry, has compiled more than 13,000 testimonials from people who say vaping helped them give up smoking.
Studies show mixed results that using vapes can help traditional smokers quit.
A November 2022 Cochrane review showed a “high certainty of evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking traditional cigarettes for at least 6 months using e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes,’ than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.” The meta-analysis examined 78 studies with more than 22,000 participants. And a 2019 study with 886 participants, published in the New England Journal Medicine, found smokers who tried vaping to quit were twice as likely after a year to have stopped smoking cigarettes than those who used nicotine replacement therapy.
“In terms of the global research, it’s pretty clear that vaping can help smokers quit,” said Peter Shields, MD, a professor in the department of internal medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who specializes in the treatment of lung cancer.
But a 2013 study published in the Lancet, and another from the Lancet in 2019, found only a modest improvement in cessation outcomes when participants used e-cigarettes paired with patches, compared with patches alone.
“For a disruptive technology that was supposed to end combustible tobacco use, there seems very little large-scale disruption,” said Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, co-director of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond.
Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, MPH, director of clinical research at the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, pointed to research that shows a portion of people who start vaping to quit smoking end up using both products – or become so-called “dual” users.
“I do think there is fairly high-quality evidence that vaping can lead to more cessation, but at the tradeoff of more long-term dual users and more overall nicotine addiction,” Dr. Blaha said. “Vaping remains a third-line clinical tool after nicotine replacement therapy and FDA-approved cessation medications.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any e-cigarette or vaping device for smoking cessation, like it has for patches and gums, which means manufacturers cannot market their products as helping tobacco smokers quit.
“ Ms. Hanna, from RWJBarnabas Health’s Institute for Prevention and Recovery, said.
Reducing harm and improving health?
Vapes have also been touted as a boon to individual and public health since cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and disability in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Quitting smoking lowers the risk of developing various cancers, heart disease, stroke, and other serious diseases. The aim of nicotine replacement therapy is to help smokers quit by gradually providing the body with smaller doses of nicotine over time, without exposing the body to toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.
“No one should say that e-cigarettes are safe, but compared to cigarettes, the data is consistent: They are not as harmful, and when a smoker switches, it’s better for them,” Dr. Shields said. “Like with other nicotine replacement therapies, if there is a risk that someone stops vaping and returns to smoking, I would rather have them as long-term vapers since it is generally considered to be less harmful than combustible tobacco.”
The FDA has allowed a handful of companies to market their electronic nicotine delivery systems as safer than traditional cigarettes by gaining approval through the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications process. In 2021, the agency announced its first PMTA authorization of an electronic cigarette to R.J. Reynolds for three of its tobacco-flavored vaping products. Regulators approved more products from three additional companies in 2022.
But the FDA has also denied others, including two products in 2023 from R.J. Reynolds, stating that, “the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”
Questions remain among some researchers on the effects of vaping if used long term. Data on the health effects of vapes are just beginning to emerge and are mainly from studies of animals or cells. Measuring health effects among vape users will entail decades more of study, since Americans only gained access to the products in the 2000s.
Dr. Eissenberg said vaping likely does not cause the same diseases as cigarette smoking, but that does not mean they are not harmful. Ingredients found in e-cigarettes, such as heated propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavors, have only been used as food ingredients. The potential diseases caused by vapes are still unknown, because inhaling these heated ingredients is new. He also said he had “no issue” with an adult smoker vaping to help them quit smoking – as long they do so for a short period.
“I am very concerned that long-term use in adults could lead to considerable disease and death,” Dr. Eissenberg said. “Simply put, the human lung evolved for one purpose: gas exchange of oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Anything else that enters the lung is a challenge to the organ.”
But Kenneth Warner, PhD, dean emeritus at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said breaking the addiction to traditional cigarettes could reduce high rates of lung cancer in lower income communities where rates of smoking are comparatively high.
About three times as many Americans smoked (12.6%) than vaped (4.7%) in 2021, but those who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to smoke. According to the CDC, use of tobacco is higher among adults who were uninsured (27.3%) or who had Medicaid coverage (28.6%) than among those with private insurance (16.4%). People with annual family incomes of less than $12,500 also are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those with family incomes of $50,000 or more. Public health researchers have attributed those disparities in part to higher rates of smoking in lower-income households.
Dr. Warner said many lower-income and other Americans may never quit smoking cigarettes because they believe making the switch to e-cigarettes will not benefit their health. A 2022 study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that the percent of Americans who thought vaping was more harmful than smoking quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, from 6.8% to 28.3%. A third of respondents thought vaping was as harmful as smoking.
“We’ve convinced a large percentage of the American public that vaping is as harmful as smoking when it could be helping people quit smoking,” Dr. Warner said. “People are dying right now.”
Ms. Markowitz did quit smoking by taking up vaping. But now she questions if her lung cancer prognosis would have been delayed, or even avoided, if she’d tried a traditional method like a lozenge or gum instead. She vaped once an hour for most of her 7 years of using the devices.
“For people who are trying to stop smoking, I would recommend something like the patch instead,” Ms. Markowitz said.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives receives funding from the vaping industry. Dr. Blaha, Dr. Eissenberg, Ms. Hanna, Dr. Shields, and Dr. Warner reported no funding from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Dr. Blaha and Dr. Warner receive tobacco-related research funding from the FDA. Dr. Warner is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Can asthma incidence be reduced by attention to sleep disorders?
Early detection and management of sleep disorders could reduce asthma incidence, according to a large-scale prospective study that included nearly half a million participants. The study was published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.
The investigators took into consideration polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for asthma and comprehensive sleep scores encompassing five sleep traits.
Sleep quality is generally recognized as a nongenetic driver of asthma. Poor sleep quality and obstructive sleep apnea have been reported particularly among those with severe disease. In addition, asthma is known to adversely affect sleep duration, sleep quality, napping, and daytime sleepiness.
The researchers suggest that the relationship between sleep and asthma is bidirectional, given that sleep disorders (sleep of short duration, insomnia, evening chronotype [“night owl”], snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness) are associated with specific chronic inflammatory reactions. It has remained unclear, however, whether poor sleep reflects a higher risk of early asthma progression.
Genetic factors also contribute to asthma risk, but highly variable heritability suggests that the nongenetic exposures play an important role. “However, whether healthy nongenetic exposure could decrease the risk of asthma and mitigate the adverse effect of genetic risk remains largely unknown,” the authors state. They hypothesize that healthier sleep could decrease future asthma risk and mitigate the hazards of genetic effects.
Using data from the UK Biobank, a national large, prospective cohort drawn from 22 U.K. assessment centers, they investigated the independent and combined effects of sleep pattern and PRSs on asthma incidence.
In the UK Biobank cohort (455,405 adults aged 38-73 years, who were enrolled from 2006 to 2010), 17,836 were diagnosed with asthma over 10 years of follow-up. PRSs were constructed for each participant on the basis of their having any of 17 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are significantly associated with asthma. Participants were stratified into three groups: those at high genetic risk, those at intermediate genetic risk, and those at low genetic risk. Around 1 in 3 participants were classified as being at high genetic risk (150,429), and another third (151,970) were classified as being at intermediate risk. The remainder were classified as being at low risk. Some 7,105 people at high genetic risk and 5,748 at intermediate genetic risk were diagnosed with asthma during the monitoring period.
Comprehensive sleep scores, which ranged from 0 to 5, were constructed on the basis of self-reported sleep traits. Higher scores represented healthier sleep patterns. A healthy sleep pattern was defined as early chronotype; getting from 7 to 9 hours of sleep every night; never or rare insomnia; no snoring; and no frequent daytime sleepiness. On the basis of their responses, 73,223 people met the criteria for a healthy sleep pattern; 284,267, an intermediate sleep pattern; and 97,915, a poor sleep pattern.
“Compared with non-cases, asthma cases were more likely to have lower education levels, unhealthy sleep traits and patterns, obesity, higher PRS, more smoking, more alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes, depression, gastroesophageal reflux. and more air pollution exposure,” the authors report. All five healthy sleep traits were independently associated with lower risk for asthma. Never/rare insomnia and sleep duration of 7-9 hours a night were seemingly the most influential; they were associated with risk reductions of 25% and 20%, respectively.
Analysis showed that, compared with the low-risk group, the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the highest PRS group and the poor sleep pattern group were 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.52) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.45-1.65), respectively.
Risk was twofold higher in the presence of a combination of poor sleep and high genetic susceptibility (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.97-2.49; P < .001). Conversely, a healthy sleep pattern was associated with a lower risk of asthma in the low (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64), intermediate (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and high genetic susceptibility groups (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70). A population-attributable risk analysis indicated that improving these sleep traits would prevent 19% of asthma cases. Also, a subset analysis suggested that a healthy sleep pattern might reduce the risk of asthma among those at high genetic risk by 37%.
The study findings suggest that analysis of sleep patterns is warranted for all asthma patients, said coauthor Qing Wang, PhD, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China, in an interview. “In our results, the effects of sleep and genetics were independent. Therefore, what we learned about the effects of sleep on asthma could be applied to all the patients, including those with a high or low genetic predisposition. In addition, we believe that intervening among those with high genetic predisposition could be more beneficial since they are more likely to have asthma. However, because this study is observational, a large clinical trial is absolutely needed to provide causal evidence, especially before guidelines modifications can be considered.”
Complex and multifactorial
“Addressing relevant asthma comorbid conditions continues to be an integral part of asthma care,” commented Diego J. Maselli, MD, associate professor of medicine and interim chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health, San Antonio, in an interview. “There is mounting evidence that sleep patterns and obstructive sleep apnea may influence asthma control. This association is complex and multifactorial. It is important to remember that obstructive sleep apnea may coexist with other conditions, such as obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease, that in turn can also worsen asthma control and influence clinical outcomes.
“Yet, even after controlling for these factors, sleep disturbances have been associated with poor asthma outcomes. It is reasonable, particularly in patients with uncontrolled and/or severe asthma, to screen for sleep disturbances. There are multiple questionnaires and clinical tools that can be employed to screen for coexisting sleep apnea and other conditions. Although genetic testing has shown some promise in identifying individuals at risk, these assays are not widely available and are not ready yet for routine clinical practice. Therefore, sleep studies should be reserved for patients that have symptoms and test positive for screening questionnaires and other tools.
“The study by Xiang and colleagues adds to the field of study, but further evidence is required to change practice guidelines at this time. Fortunately, sleep studies are readily available now with more widespread use of home testing, so patients can be easily tested. The majority third-party payers have identified that diagnosing these disorders is cost-effective and are able to reimburse sleep studies,” Dr. Maselli concluded.
The research was funded by the Future Program for Young Scholars and National Key Research and Development Program. The study authors and Dr. Maselli have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early detection and management of sleep disorders could reduce asthma incidence, according to a large-scale prospective study that included nearly half a million participants. The study was published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.
The investigators took into consideration polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for asthma and comprehensive sleep scores encompassing five sleep traits.
Sleep quality is generally recognized as a nongenetic driver of asthma. Poor sleep quality and obstructive sleep apnea have been reported particularly among those with severe disease. In addition, asthma is known to adversely affect sleep duration, sleep quality, napping, and daytime sleepiness.
The researchers suggest that the relationship between sleep and asthma is bidirectional, given that sleep disorders (sleep of short duration, insomnia, evening chronotype [“night owl”], snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness) are associated with specific chronic inflammatory reactions. It has remained unclear, however, whether poor sleep reflects a higher risk of early asthma progression.
Genetic factors also contribute to asthma risk, but highly variable heritability suggests that the nongenetic exposures play an important role. “However, whether healthy nongenetic exposure could decrease the risk of asthma and mitigate the adverse effect of genetic risk remains largely unknown,” the authors state. They hypothesize that healthier sleep could decrease future asthma risk and mitigate the hazards of genetic effects.
Using data from the UK Biobank, a national large, prospective cohort drawn from 22 U.K. assessment centers, they investigated the independent and combined effects of sleep pattern and PRSs on asthma incidence.
In the UK Biobank cohort (455,405 adults aged 38-73 years, who were enrolled from 2006 to 2010), 17,836 were diagnosed with asthma over 10 years of follow-up. PRSs were constructed for each participant on the basis of their having any of 17 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are significantly associated with asthma. Participants were stratified into three groups: those at high genetic risk, those at intermediate genetic risk, and those at low genetic risk. Around 1 in 3 participants were classified as being at high genetic risk (150,429), and another third (151,970) were classified as being at intermediate risk. The remainder were classified as being at low risk. Some 7,105 people at high genetic risk and 5,748 at intermediate genetic risk were diagnosed with asthma during the monitoring period.
Comprehensive sleep scores, which ranged from 0 to 5, were constructed on the basis of self-reported sleep traits. Higher scores represented healthier sleep patterns. A healthy sleep pattern was defined as early chronotype; getting from 7 to 9 hours of sleep every night; never or rare insomnia; no snoring; and no frequent daytime sleepiness. On the basis of their responses, 73,223 people met the criteria for a healthy sleep pattern; 284,267, an intermediate sleep pattern; and 97,915, a poor sleep pattern.
“Compared with non-cases, asthma cases were more likely to have lower education levels, unhealthy sleep traits and patterns, obesity, higher PRS, more smoking, more alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes, depression, gastroesophageal reflux. and more air pollution exposure,” the authors report. All five healthy sleep traits were independently associated with lower risk for asthma. Never/rare insomnia and sleep duration of 7-9 hours a night were seemingly the most influential; they were associated with risk reductions of 25% and 20%, respectively.
Analysis showed that, compared with the low-risk group, the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the highest PRS group and the poor sleep pattern group were 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.52) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.45-1.65), respectively.
Risk was twofold higher in the presence of a combination of poor sleep and high genetic susceptibility (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.97-2.49; P < .001). Conversely, a healthy sleep pattern was associated with a lower risk of asthma in the low (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64), intermediate (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and high genetic susceptibility groups (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70). A population-attributable risk analysis indicated that improving these sleep traits would prevent 19% of asthma cases. Also, a subset analysis suggested that a healthy sleep pattern might reduce the risk of asthma among those at high genetic risk by 37%.
The study findings suggest that analysis of sleep patterns is warranted for all asthma patients, said coauthor Qing Wang, PhD, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China, in an interview. “In our results, the effects of sleep and genetics were independent. Therefore, what we learned about the effects of sleep on asthma could be applied to all the patients, including those with a high or low genetic predisposition. In addition, we believe that intervening among those with high genetic predisposition could be more beneficial since they are more likely to have asthma. However, because this study is observational, a large clinical trial is absolutely needed to provide causal evidence, especially before guidelines modifications can be considered.”
Complex and multifactorial
“Addressing relevant asthma comorbid conditions continues to be an integral part of asthma care,” commented Diego J. Maselli, MD, associate professor of medicine and interim chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health, San Antonio, in an interview. “There is mounting evidence that sleep patterns and obstructive sleep apnea may influence asthma control. This association is complex and multifactorial. It is important to remember that obstructive sleep apnea may coexist with other conditions, such as obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease, that in turn can also worsen asthma control and influence clinical outcomes.
“Yet, even after controlling for these factors, sleep disturbances have been associated with poor asthma outcomes. It is reasonable, particularly in patients with uncontrolled and/or severe asthma, to screen for sleep disturbances. There are multiple questionnaires and clinical tools that can be employed to screen for coexisting sleep apnea and other conditions. Although genetic testing has shown some promise in identifying individuals at risk, these assays are not widely available and are not ready yet for routine clinical practice. Therefore, sleep studies should be reserved for patients that have symptoms and test positive for screening questionnaires and other tools.
“The study by Xiang and colleagues adds to the field of study, but further evidence is required to change practice guidelines at this time. Fortunately, sleep studies are readily available now with more widespread use of home testing, so patients can be easily tested. The majority third-party payers have identified that diagnosing these disorders is cost-effective and are able to reimburse sleep studies,” Dr. Maselli concluded.
The research was funded by the Future Program for Young Scholars and National Key Research and Development Program. The study authors and Dr. Maselli have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early detection and management of sleep disorders could reduce asthma incidence, according to a large-scale prospective study that included nearly half a million participants. The study was published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.
The investigators took into consideration polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for asthma and comprehensive sleep scores encompassing five sleep traits.
Sleep quality is generally recognized as a nongenetic driver of asthma. Poor sleep quality and obstructive sleep apnea have been reported particularly among those with severe disease. In addition, asthma is known to adversely affect sleep duration, sleep quality, napping, and daytime sleepiness.
The researchers suggest that the relationship between sleep and asthma is bidirectional, given that sleep disorders (sleep of short duration, insomnia, evening chronotype [“night owl”], snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness) are associated with specific chronic inflammatory reactions. It has remained unclear, however, whether poor sleep reflects a higher risk of early asthma progression.
Genetic factors also contribute to asthma risk, but highly variable heritability suggests that the nongenetic exposures play an important role. “However, whether healthy nongenetic exposure could decrease the risk of asthma and mitigate the adverse effect of genetic risk remains largely unknown,” the authors state. They hypothesize that healthier sleep could decrease future asthma risk and mitigate the hazards of genetic effects.
Using data from the UK Biobank, a national large, prospective cohort drawn from 22 U.K. assessment centers, they investigated the independent and combined effects of sleep pattern and PRSs on asthma incidence.
In the UK Biobank cohort (455,405 adults aged 38-73 years, who were enrolled from 2006 to 2010), 17,836 were diagnosed with asthma over 10 years of follow-up. PRSs were constructed for each participant on the basis of their having any of 17 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are significantly associated with asthma. Participants were stratified into three groups: those at high genetic risk, those at intermediate genetic risk, and those at low genetic risk. Around 1 in 3 participants were classified as being at high genetic risk (150,429), and another third (151,970) were classified as being at intermediate risk. The remainder were classified as being at low risk. Some 7,105 people at high genetic risk and 5,748 at intermediate genetic risk were diagnosed with asthma during the monitoring period.
Comprehensive sleep scores, which ranged from 0 to 5, were constructed on the basis of self-reported sleep traits. Higher scores represented healthier sleep patterns. A healthy sleep pattern was defined as early chronotype; getting from 7 to 9 hours of sleep every night; never or rare insomnia; no snoring; and no frequent daytime sleepiness. On the basis of their responses, 73,223 people met the criteria for a healthy sleep pattern; 284,267, an intermediate sleep pattern; and 97,915, a poor sleep pattern.
“Compared with non-cases, asthma cases were more likely to have lower education levels, unhealthy sleep traits and patterns, obesity, higher PRS, more smoking, more alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes, depression, gastroesophageal reflux. and more air pollution exposure,” the authors report. All five healthy sleep traits were independently associated with lower risk for asthma. Never/rare insomnia and sleep duration of 7-9 hours a night were seemingly the most influential; they were associated with risk reductions of 25% and 20%, respectively.
Analysis showed that, compared with the low-risk group, the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the highest PRS group and the poor sleep pattern group were 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.52) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.45-1.65), respectively.
Risk was twofold higher in the presence of a combination of poor sleep and high genetic susceptibility (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.97-2.49; P < .001). Conversely, a healthy sleep pattern was associated with a lower risk of asthma in the low (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64), intermediate (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and high genetic susceptibility groups (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70). A population-attributable risk analysis indicated that improving these sleep traits would prevent 19% of asthma cases. Also, a subset analysis suggested that a healthy sleep pattern might reduce the risk of asthma among those at high genetic risk by 37%.
The study findings suggest that analysis of sleep patterns is warranted for all asthma patients, said coauthor Qing Wang, PhD, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China, in an interview. “In our results, the effects of sleep and genetics were independent. Therefore, what we learned about the effects of sleep on asthma could be applied to all the patients, including those with a high or low genetic predisposition. In addition, we believe that intervening among those with high genetic predisposition could be more beneficial since they are more likely to have asthma. However, because this study is observational, a large clinical trial is absolutely needed to provide causal evidence, especially before guidelines modifications can be considered.”
Complex and multifactorial
“Addressing relevant asthma comorbid conditions continues to be an integral part of asthma care,” commented Diego J. Maselli, MD, associate professor of medicine and interim chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health, San Antonio, in an interview. “There is mounting evidence that sleep patterns and obstructive sleep apnea may influence asthma control. This association is complex and multifactorial. It is important to remember that obstructive sleep apnea may coexist with other conditions, such as obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease, that in turn can also worsen asthma control and influence clinical outcomes.
“Yet, even after controlling for these factors, sleep disturbances have been associated with poor asthma outcomes. It is reasonable, particularly in patients with uncontrolled and/or severe asthma, to screen for sleep disturbances. There are multiple questionnaires and clinical tools that can be employed to screen for coexisting sleep apnea and other conditions. Although genetic testing has shown some promise in identifying individuals at risk, these assays are not widely available and are not ready yet for routine clinical practice. Therefore, sleep studies should be reserved for patients that have symptoms and test positive for screening questionnaires and other tools.
“The study by Xiang and colleagues adds to the field of study, but further evidence is required to change practice guidelines at this time. Fortunately, sleep studies are readily available now with more widespread use of home testing, so patients can be easily tested. The majority third-party payers have identified that diagnosing these disorders is cost-effective and are able to reimburse sleep studies,” Dr. Maselli concluded.
The research was funded by the Future Program for Young Scholars and National Key Research and Development Program. The study authors and Dr. Maselli have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ OPEN RESPIRATORY RESEARCH
The essential care team
As you may have seen in the February issue, in my year serving as President of the American College of Chest Physicians, I will be periodically contributing to CHEST Physician with the latest updates and to serve as a touchpoint for what we are currently working on.
For this contribution, I want to share and reflect upon the recent Nurse Work Environment study published by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN). Deployed in 2021, the now-published study concluded that there is serious need for “bold, intentional, and relentless” efforts to create and sustain healthy work environments that foster excellence in patient care and optimal outcomes for patients, nurses, and other members of the health care team.
To achieve this, AACN recommends adhering to the Healthy Work Environments (HWE) Standards created in 2005 but that are more pertinent than ever in 2023.
In a previous article for CHEST Physician, I spoke about my goals for 2023 and one of those goals was to focus on increasing the membership of a variety of providers who help care for patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, registered nurses, and others. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more, and this is a great time to reemphasize the importance of the care team by showing our support of the AACN and the working conditions of nurses.
Beyond supporting other organizations, the CHEST Board of Regents will focus on new ways to make the organization a valuable resource to every member at every level of their career and with every designation.
The (HWE) Standards that I encourage all CHEST members to support include:
- Skilled communication and true collaboration between doctors, nurses and other clinicians.
- Effective decision-making that includes nurses in the process for input and expertise.
- Appropriate staffing that ensures an effective match between patient needs and the skills of the nurse.
- Meaningful recognition by rewarding and appreciating the value that everyone brings to the team.
- Authentic leadership that embraces a healthy work environment and is supportive of every member of the care team.
Let’s all make a dedicated effort to be intentional in our support of our care team colleagues to improve the working environment and overall patient care.
Think of one thing you can do at your own institution or in your practice to improve the work environment for all those on your team. And then make it happen!
Please reach out with ideas or questions.
As you may have seen in the February issue, in my year serving as President of the American College of Chest Physicians, I will be periodically contributing to CHEST Physician with the latest updates and to serve as a touchpoint for what we are currently working on.
For this contribution, I want to share and reflect upon the recent Nurse Work Environment study published by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN). Deployed in 2021, the now-published study concluded that there is serious need for “bold, intentional, and relentless” efforts to create and sustain healthy work environments that foster excellence in patient care and optimal outcomes for patients, nurses, and other members of the health care team.
To achieve this, AACN recommends adhering to the Healthy Work Environments (HWE) Standards created in 2005 but that are more pertinent than ever in 2023.
In a previous article for CHEST Physician, I spoke about my goals for 2023 and one of those goals was to focus on increasing the membership of a variety of providers who help care for patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, registered nurses, and others. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more, and this is a great time to reemphasize the importance of the care team by showing our support of the AACN and the working conditions of nurses.
Beyond supporting other organizations, the CHEST Board of Regents will focus on new ways to make the organization a valuable resource to every member at every level of their career and with every designation.
The (HWE) Standards that I encourage all CHEST members to support include:
- Skilled communication and true collaboration between doctors, nurses and other clinicians.
- Effective decision-making that includes nurses in the process for input and expertise.
- Appropriate staffing that ensures an effective match between patient needs and the skills of the nurse.
- Meaningful recognition by rewarding and appreciating the value that everyone brings to the team.
- Authentic leadership that embraces a healthy work environment and is supportive of every member of the care team.
Let’s all make a dedicated effort to be intentional in our support of our care team colleagues to improve the working environment and overall patient care.
Think of one thing you can do at your own institution or in your practice to improve the work environment for all those on your team. And then make it happen!
Please reach out with ideas or questions.
As you may have seen in the February issue, in my year serving as President of the American College of Chest Physicians, I will be periodically contributing to CHEST Physician with the latest updates and to serve as a touchpoint for what we are currently working on.
For this contribution, I want to share and reflect upon the recent Nurse Work Environment study published by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN). Deployed in 2021, the now-published study concluded that there is serious need for “bold, intentional, and relentless” efforts to create and sustain healthy work environments that foster excellence in patient care and optimal outcomes for patients, nurses, and other members of the health care team.
To achieve this, AACN recommends adhering to the Healthy Work Environments (HWE) Standards created in 2005 but that are more pertinent than ever in 2023.
In a previous article for CHEST Physician, I spoke about my goals for 2023 and one of those goals was to focus on increasing the membership of a variety of providers who help care for patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, registered nurses, and others. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more, and this is a great time to reemphasize the importance of the care team by showing our support of the AACN and the working conditions of nurses.
Beyond supporting other organizations, the CHEST Board of Regents will focus on new ways to make the organization a valuable resource to every member at every level of their career and with every designation.
The (HWE) Standards that I encourage all CHEST members to support include:
- Skilled communication and true collaboration between doctors, nurses and other clinicians.
- Effective decision-making that includes nurses in the process for input and expertise.
- Appropriate staffing that ensures an effective match between patient needs and the skills of the nurse.
- Meaningful recognition by rewarding and appreciating the value that everyone brings to the team.
- Authentic leadership that embraces a healthy work environment and is supportive of every member of the care team.
Let’s all make a dedicated effort to be intentional in our support of our care team colleagues to improve the working environment and overall patient care.
Think of one thing you can do at your own institution or in your practice to improve the work environment for all those on your team. And then make it happen!
Please reach out with ideas or questions.
Health care in America: Let that tapeworm grow
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Exploring and improving the work environment for nurses
If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).
There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.
In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.
Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.
Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.
If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).
There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.
In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.
Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.
Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.
If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).
There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.
In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.
Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.
Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.
From our Immediate Past President
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.
Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.
The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
We launched the First 5 Minutes® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.
So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.
David
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.
Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.
The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
We launched the First 5 Minutes® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.
So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.
David
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.
Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.
The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
We launched the First 5 Minutes® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.
So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.
David
Next stop, Hawai’i: A look into the Scientific Program Committee Meeting
Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.
Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.
Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”
Breadth of coverage
With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:
- Critical Care
- Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
- Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
- Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
- Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
- Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
- Airways Disease
- Sleep
During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.
Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
The CHEST atmosphere
Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.
Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”
Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.
Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.
Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.
Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”
Breadth of coverage
With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:
- Critical Care
- Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
- Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
- Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
- Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
- Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
- Airways Disease
- Sleep
During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.
Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
The CHEST atmosphere
Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.
Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”
Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.
Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.
Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.
Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”
Breadth of coverage
With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:
- Critical Care
- Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
- Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
- Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
- Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
- Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
- Airways Disease
- Sleep
During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.
Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
The CHEST atmosphere
Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.
Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”
Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.
Previously unknown viral families hide in the darnedest places
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
Bad sleep cuts years off life, but exercise can save us
Experts recommend that most adults get 7-9 hours of sleep a night.
Plenty of research points to sleep and physical activity as crucial factors affecting life expectancy. Regular exercise can lengthen life, while too little or too much sleep may cut it short.
But evidence is growing that exercise may counteract the negative effects of poor sleep. A 2022 study found that being physically active for at least 25 minutes a day can erase the risk of early death associated with too much sleep or trouble falling asleep. And a 2021 study found that lower levels of physical activity may exacerbate the impact of poor sleep on early death, heart disease, and cancer.
The latest such study, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, suggests that higher volumes of exercise can virtually eliminate the risk of early death associated with sleeping too little or too long.
This study is unique, the researchers say, because it used accelerometers (motion-tracking sensors) to quantify sleep and physical activity. Other studies asked participants to report their own data, opening the door to false reports and mistakes.
Some 92,000 participants in the United Kingdom (mean age, 62 years; 56% women) wore the activity trackers for a week to measure how much they moved and slept. In the following 7 years, 3,080 participants died, mostly from cardiovascular disease or cancer.
As one might expect, the participants who were least likely to die also exercised the most and slept the “normal” amount (6-8 hours a night, as defined by the study).
Compared with that group, those who exercised the least and slept less than 6 hours were 2.5 times more likely to die during those 7 years (P < .001). Less active persons who got the recommended sleep were 79% more likely to die (P < .001). The risk was slightly higher than that for those who logged more than 8 hours a night.
But those risks disappeared for short- or long-sleeping participants who logged at least 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous activity.
“Exercise fights inflammatory and metabolic dysregulations and abnormal sympathetic nervous system activity,” said study author Jihui Zhang, PhD, of the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou (China). Those problems are associated with cardiovascular diseases and other potentially fatal conditions.
More objective data – with tech
A study’s findings are only as good as the data it relies on. That’s why obtaining objective data not influenced by individual perception is key.
“Self-report questionnaires are prone to misperception, or recall or response bias,” Dr. Zhang explains.
Take sleep, for example. Research reveals that several factors can affect how we judge our sleep. When people have to sleep at irregular times, they often underestimate how many hours they sleep but overestimate how long they nap, found a study in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Another study showed that when people are under a lot of stress, they’ll report more sleep problems than they actually have, as revealed by an Actiheart monitor.
With exercise, participants often report doing more exercise, and doing it at a higher intensity, than objective measurements show they did. At the same time, self-reports typically don’t account for much of the unplanned, low-effort movement people do throughout the day.
Staying active when you’re tired
The study raises a practical question: If you don’t get the proper amount of sleep, how are you supposed to find the time, energy, and motivation to exercise?
The solution is to use one to fix the other.
Exercise and sleep have “a robust directional relationship,” Dr. Zhang said. Exercise improves sleep, while better sleep makes it easier to stick with an exercise program.
Ideally, that program will include a mix of cardio and resistance exercise, said Mitch Duncan, PhD, a professor of public health at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
As Dr. Duncan and his co-authors showed in a recent study, “the largest benefits to health occur when people do a combination of both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity,” Dr. Duncan said.
“In terms of benefits to sleep, there doesn’t seem to be consistent evidence that favors either as being most effective.”
The timing or intensity of exercise doesn’t seem to matter much, either.
“But there is evidence that a greater duration contributes to larger improvements in sleep,” Dr. Duncan said.
In other words, longer workouts are generally better, but they don’t necessarily have to be super-intense.
The strongest evidence of all, however, shows that recent and regular exercise offer the biggest benefits at bedtime.
Today’s workout will improve tonight’s sleep. And the better you sleep tonight, the more likely you are to stick with the program.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Experts recommend that most adults get 7-9 hours of sleep a night.
Plenty of research points to sleep and physical activity as crucial factors affecting life expectancy. Regular exercise can lengthen life, while too little or too much sleep may cut it short.
But evidence is growing that exercise may counteract the negative effects of poor sleep. A 2022 study found that being physically active for at least 25 minutes a day can erase the risk of early death associated with too much sleep or trouble falling asleep. And a 2021 study found that lower levels of physical activity may exacerbate the impact of poor sleep on early death, heart disease, and cancer.
The latest such study, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, suggests that higher volumes of exercise can virtually eliminate the risk of early death associated with sleeping too little or too long.
This study is unique, the researchers say, because it used accelerometers (motion-tracking sensors) to quantify sleep and physical activity. Other studies asked participants to report their own data, opening the door to false reports and mistakes.
Some 92,000 participants in the United Kingdom (mean age, 62 years; 56% women) wore the activity trackers for a week to measure how much they moved and slept. In the following 7 years, 3,080 participants died, mostly from cardiovascular disease or cancer.
As one might expect, the participants who were least likely to die also exercised the most and slept the “normal” amount (6-8 hours a night, as defined by the study).
Compared with that group, those who exercised the least and slept less than 6 hours were 2.5 times more likely to die during those 7 years (P < .001). Less active persons who got the recommended sleep were 79% more likely to die (P < .001). The risk was slightly higher than that for those who logged more than 8 hours a night.
But those risks disappeared for short- or long-sleeping participants who logged at least 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous activity.
“Exercise fights inflammatory and metabolic dysregulations and abnormal sympathetic nervous system activity,” said study author Jihui Zhang, PhD, of the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou (China). Those problems are associated with cardiovascular diseases and other potentially fatal conditions.
More objective data – with tech
A study’s findings are only as good as the data it relies on. That’s why obtaining objective data not influenced by individual perception is key.
“Self-report questionnaires are prone to misperception, or recall or response bias,” Dr. Zhang explains.
Take sleep, for example. Research reveals that several factors can affect how we judge our sleep. When people have to sleep at irregular times, they often underestimate how many hours they sleep but overestimate how long they nap, found a study in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Another study showed that when people are under a lot of stress, they’ll report more sleep problems than they actually have, as revealed by an Actiheart monitor.
With exercise, participants often report doing more exercise, and doing it at a higher intensity, than objective measurements show they did. At the same time, self-reports typically don’t account for much of the unplanned, low-effort movement people do throughout the day.
Staying active when you’re tired
The study raises a practical question: If you don’t get the proper amount of sleep, how are you supposed to find the time, energy, and motivation to exercise?
The solution is to use one to fix the other.
Exercise and sleep have “a robust directional relationship,” Dr. Zhang said. Exercise improves sleep, while better sleep makes it easier to stick with an exercise program.
Ideally, that program will include a mix of cardio and resistance exercise, said Mitch Duncan, PhD, a professor of public health at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
As Dr. Duncan and his co-authors showed in a recent study, “the largest benefits to health occur when people do a combination of both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity,” Dr. Duncan said.
“In terms of benefits to sleep, there doesn’t seem to be consistent evidence that favors either as being most effective.”
The timing or intensity of exercise doesn’t seem to matter much, either.
“But there is evidence that a greater duration contributes to larger improvements in sleep,” Dr. Duncan said.
In other words, longer workouts are generally better, but they don’t necessarily have to be super-intense.
The strongest evidence of all, however, shows that recent and regular exercise offer the biggest benefits at bedtime.
Today’s workout will improve tonight’s sleep. And the better you sleep tonight, the more likely you are to stick with the program.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Experts recommend that most adults get 7-9 hours of sleep a night.
Plenty of research points to sleep and physical activity as crucial factors affecting life expectancy. Regular exercise can lengthen life, while too little or too much sleep may cut it short.
But evidence is growing that exercise may counteract the negative effects of poor sleep. A 2022 study found that being physically active for at least 25 minutes a day can erase the risk of early death associated with too much sleep or trouble falling asleep. And a 2021 study found that lower levels of physical activity may exacerbate the impact of poor sleep on early death, heart disease, and cancer.
The latest such study, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, suggests that higher volumes of exercise can virtually eliminate the risk of early death associated with sleeping too little or too long.
This study is unique, the researchers say, because it used accelerometers (motion-tracking sensors) to quantify sleep and physical activity. Other studies asked participants to report their own data, opening the door to false reports and mistakes.
Some 92,000 participants in the United Kingdom (mean age, 62 years; 56% women) wore the activity trackers for a week to measure how much they moved and slept. In the following 7 years, 3,080 participants died, mostly from cardiovascular disease or cancer.
As one might expect, the participants who were least likely to die also exercised the most and slept the “normal” amount (6-8 hours a night, as defined by the study).
Compared with that group, those who exercised the least and slept less than 6 hours were 2.5 times more likely to die during those 7 years (P < .001). Less active persons who got the recommended sleep were 79% more likely to die (P < .001). The risk was slightly higher than that for those who logged more than 8 hours a night.
But those risks disappeared for short- or long-sleeping participants who logged at least 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous activity.
“Exercise fights inflammatory and metabolic dysregulations and abnormal sympathetic nervous system activity,” said study author Jihui Zhang, PhD, of the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou (China). Those problems are associated with cardiovascular diseases and other potentially fatal conditions.
More objective data – with tech
A study’s findings are only as good as the data it relies on. That’s why obtaining objective data not influenced by individual perception is key.
“Self-report questionnaires are prone to misperception, or recall or response bias,” Dr. Zhang explains.
Take sleep, for example. Research reveals that several factors can affect how we judge our sleep. When people have to sleep at irregular times, they often underestimate how many hours they sleep but overestimate how long they nap, found a study in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Another study showed that when people are under a lot of stress, they’ll report more sleep problems than they actually have, as revealed by an Actiheart monitor.
With exercise, participants often report doing more exercise, and doing it at a higher intensity, than objective measurements show they did. At the same time, self-reports typically don’t account for much of the unplanned, low-effort movement people do throughout the day.
Staying active when you’re tired
The study raises a practical question: If you don’t get the proper amount of sleep, how are you supposed to find the time, energy, and motivation to exercise?
The solution is to use one to fix the other.
Exercise and sleep have “a robust directional relationship,” Dr. Zhang said. Exercise improves sleep, while better sleep makes it easier to stick with an exercise program.
Ideally, that program will include a mix of cardio and resistance exercise, said Mitch Duncan, PhD, a professor of public health at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
As Dr. Duncan and his co-authors showed in a recent study, “the largest benefits to health occur when people do a combination of both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity,” Dr. Duncan said.
“In terms of benefits to sleep, there doesn’t seem to be consistent evidence that favors either as being most effective.”
The timing or intensity of exercise doesn’t seem to matter much, either.
“But there is evidence that a greater duration contributes to larger improvements in sleep,” Dr. Duncan said.
In other words, longer workouts are generally better, but they don’t necessarily have to be super-intense.
The strongest evidence of all, however, shows that recent and regular exercise offer the biggest benefits at bedtime.
Today’s workout will improve tonight’s sleep. And the better you sleep tonight, the more likely you are to stick with the program.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY