CHEST Physician

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.

In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.

“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
 

Limited options

Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.

The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.

“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.

“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.

A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.

The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
 

High response, adherence rates

Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.

The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).

Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.

There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.

“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.

Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
 

Landmark investigation

Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.

“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.

The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.

In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.

“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
 

Limited options

Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.

The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.

“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.

“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.

A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.

The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
 

High response, adherence rates

Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.

The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).

Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.

There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.

“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.

Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
 

Landmark investigation

Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.

“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.

The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Upper airway hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in adolescents with Down syndrome and severe persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) occurring after adenotonsillectomy and who couldn’t tolerate positive airway pressure, early research suggests.

In a phase I study, 42 adolescents received a surgically implanted device that moves the tongue forward during sleep. Results at 1-year follow-up showed 66% “responded well” to treatment and showed a drop in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 50%.

“Parents came back to us and said not only is the sleep better but my child seems to be doing better during the day,” lead investigator Christopher Hartnick, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology and the Pediatric Airway, Voice, and Swallowing Center at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.
 

Limited options

Upper airway simulation has been shown previously to be effective for adults with OSA, but up until now, the process has not been evaluated in children.

The device used in the current study “stimulates the hypoglossal nerve to protrude the tongue and open the airway on inspiration during sleep,” the investigators note.

“Hypoglossal nerve stimulation may be a particularly suitable therapy for patients with Down syndrome because it can augment neuromuscular airway tone and reduce anatomical obstruction at the base of the tongue, a common site of residual obstruction in children with Down syndrome,” they add.

“This study was born out of the frustration of not having an effective treatment option for children with Down syndrome who struggle with sleep apnea,” Dr. Hartnick said in a news release.

A total of 42 adolescents (67% male; mean age, 15 years) with Down syndrome and persistent severe OSA after adenotonsillectomy were implanted with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator. All were followed for 12 months.

The surgery was safe, with the most common adverse event being temporary tongue discomfort in five patients (12%). This typically resolved in weeks, the researchers note.
 

High response, adherence rates

Results showed response rates and adherence to therapy was high. The mean duration of nightly therapy was 9 hours, with 40 children (95.2%) using the device at least 4 hours every night.

The implant was also effective, with a mean decrease in AHI of 12.9 events per hour (95% confidence interval, –17.0 to –8.7 events per hour).

Nearly two-thirds of the children had at least a 50% reduction in their AHI, while roughly three-fourths had a 12-month follow-up AHI of less than 10 events per hour.

There were also significant improvements in polysomnographic and parent-reported quality of life outcomes 12 months after the implant, including improvement in sleep and daily functioning, behavior, and language.

“Sleep apnea remains one of the most common conditions that I grapple with working with patients with Down syndrome and their families,” co-investigator Brian Skotko, MD, Emma Campbell endowed chair on Down syndrome at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“Until now, so many of our patients had run out of treatment options, and their health and well-being were declining. Now, with the hypoglossal nerve stimulator treatment, we may have an effective and safe way to treat apnea and maximize brain health for people with Down syndrome,” Dr. Skotko added.

Dr. Hartnick and Dr. Skotko have received a $4 million, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to assess whether upper airway stimulation might help cognition in children with Down syndrome.
 

Landmark investigation

Co-authors of an invited commentary said they “applaud” the researchers for their “landmark” investigation, which demonstrated a response to upper airway stimulation in children with Down syndrome and OSA that is on par with what has been achieved in adults with OSA.

“They have established the safety of the procedure; however, future research is necessary to optimize the results of implant,” write Norman Friedman, MD, and Katherine Green, MD, both from the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

“Further assessment regarding patient selection and the systematic preoperative identification of potential barriers that might affect successful use of therapy will be beneficial to improve longitudinal outcomes and success in this population that is uniquely different from the adult cohorts that have received implants to date,” they add.

The study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, which provided eight devices for the study but otherwise did not have a role in its design and conduct. The LuMind IDSC Down Syndrome Foundation also provided funding for the study. Dr. Hartnick and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of disclosures for the other investigators is available in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.

That doesn’t mean the topic of “how old is too old” hasn’t been one of the profession’s most heated debates for many years now.

As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.

Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”

One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.

Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.

Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”

Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”

At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.

In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”

A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.

James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”

On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.

“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”

An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”

Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.

There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”

Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”

Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.

“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.

Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
 

How screening can help  

As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”

Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”

At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”

Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”

University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.

PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.

Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”

In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
 

Looking ahead

Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”

As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.

It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.

That doesn’t mean the topic of “how old is too old” hasn’t been one of the profession’s most heated debates for many years now.

As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.

Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”

One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.

Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.

Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”

Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”

At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.

In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”

A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.

James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”

On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.

“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”

An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”

Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.

There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”

Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”

Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.

“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.

Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
 

How screening can help  

As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”

Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”

At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”

Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”

University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.

PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.

Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”

In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
 

Looking ahead

Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”

As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.

It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.

That doesn’t mean the topic of “how old is too old” hasn’t been one of the profession’s most heated debates for many years now.

As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.

Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”

One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.

Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.

Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”

Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”

At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.

In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”

A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.

James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”

On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.

“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”

An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”

Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.

There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”

Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”

Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.

“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.

Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
 

How screening can help  

As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”

Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”

At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”

Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”

University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.

PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.

Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”

In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
 

Looking ahead

Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”

As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.

It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No wonder we feel worse after naps

Some of us have hectic schedules that may make a nap feel more necessary. It’s common knowledge that naps shouldn’t be too long – maybe 20 minutes or so – but if you frequently take 3-hour naps and wake up thinking you’re late for school even though you’re 47 and have your PhD, this LOTME is for you.

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Studies have shown that there is a link between napping during the day and Alzheimer’s/cognitive decline, but now we’ve got a double whammy for you: Longer and more frequent napping is linked to worse cognition after a year, and in turn, those with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s are known to nap longer and more frequently during the day.

“We now know that the pathology related to cognitive decline can cause other changes in function,” he said. “It’s really a multisystem disorder, also including difficulty sleeping, changes in movement, changes in body composition, depression symptoms, behavioral changes, etc.,” coauthor Aron Buchman, MD, said in a statement from Rush University Medical Center.

The investigators monitored 1,400 patients over the course of 14 years with wrist bracelets that recorded when a person was not active during the day and considered that a nap.

At the beginning of the study, 75% of the study subjects had no cognitive impairment, 19.5% had some cognitive impairment, and approximately 4% had Alzheimer’s. Napping during the day only increased about 11 minutes a year for those with no signs of cognitive impairment, but those who showed significantly more signs of cognitive decline doubled their nap time and those actually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s tripled theirs.

The investigators did not imply that napping causes Alzheimer’s, but they noted that people who are older and nap more than an hour a day are 40% more likely to be at risk. It is something to consider and monitor.

Sometimes, after all, a nap seems like the best idea ever, but more often than not we wake up feeling 10 times worse. Our bodies may be giving us a heads up.

Pokemon Go away depression

The summer of 2016 was a great time if you happened to be a fan of Pokemon. Which is quite a lot of people. For almost 20 years millions have enjoyed the games and animated series, but Pokemon Go brought the thrill of catching Pokemon to life in a whole new way. For the first time, you could go out into the world and pretend you were a real Pokemon trainer, and everywhere you went, there would be others like you.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The ability to chase after Pikachu and Charizard in real life (well, augmented reality, but close enough) seemed to bring people a lot of joy, but seemed is never good enough for science. Can’t have anecdotes, we need data! So researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science conducted a study into how Pokemon Go affected local Internet search rates of depression as the game was released slowly around the world.

Through analyzing Google Trend data of words like “depression,” “anxiety,” and “stress,” the researchers found that the release of Pokemon Go was significantly associated with a noticeable, though short-term, drop in depression-related Internet searches. Location-based augmented reality games may alleviate symptoms of mild depression, the researchers said, as they encourage physical activity, face-to-face socialization, and exposure to nature, though they added that simply going outside is likely not enough to combat clinical cases of severe depression.

Still, augmented reality games represent a viable target for public health investment, since they’re easy to use and inexpensive to make. That said, we’re not sure we want the FDA or CDC making a new Pokemon Go game. They’d probably end up filling the streets with Mr. Mime. And no one would leave their house for that.
 

And now a word from our sponsor

How many times has this happened to you? You need to repair a jet engine, inspect a nuclear reactor cooling system, AND perform bowel surgery, but you can’t carry around all the heavy, old-fashioned tools needed for those jobs.

Well, we’ve got one tool that can do it all! And that tool is a snake. No, it’s a robot.

Nottingham University

It’s both! It’s the COntinuum roBot for Remote Applications. COBRA is the robot that looks like a snake! A snake that’s 5 meters long but only as thick as a pencil (about 9 mm in diameter). A robot with “extraordinary manoeuvrability and responsiveness due to … a compliant-joint structure and multiple continuous sections that enable it to bend at around 90 degrees,” according to the team at the University of Nottingham (England) that developed it.

COBRA comes equipped with a stereovision camera and a miniature cutting tool to perform complex industrial repair, but other devices can be interchanged for possible medical use.

COBRA and its joystick-like controller were designed to be easy to use. Dr. Oladejo Olaleye, the ear, nose, and throat and robotic surgeon at University Hospitals of Leicester who is directing its surgical development, was able to use COBRA on a dummy after just 5 minutes of training. He called it “the future of diagnostic endoscopy and therapeutic surgery.”

Don’t be the last aircraft engineer/nuclear technician/surgeon on your block to have this ultraslender, ultramaneuverable reptilian repair robot. Get your COBRA now! Operators are standing by.

Disclaimer: Robot is still under development and not yet on sale.

Rule, (worm) Britannia!

As long as there have been people, there have been parasitic worms living in their guts. Helminth infection is a continuing and largely ignored crisis in poor, tropical nations, though worm-based diseases have been basically eliminated from wealthier countries.

English Heritage

This wasn’t always the case, however, as a study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases (now there’s a specific topic) has found. The researchers detail the glorious history of helminth infestation in the United Kingdom from the Victorian era all the way back to prehistory, scouring hundreds of skeletons found in 17 sites across the country for eggs, which can remain intact for thousands of years.

The researchers found that two eras in particular had very high rates of infection. Unsurprisingly, the late medieval era was one of them, but the other is less obvious. The Romans were famous for their hygiene, their baths, and their plumbing, but maybe they also should be famous for the abundance of worms in their bellies. That doesn’t make sense at first: Shouldn’t good hygiene lower infection? The benefits of a good sewer system, however, are lessened when the waste containing said infectious organisms is used to fertilize crops. Recycling is generally a good thing, but less so when you’re recycling parasitic worms.

Curiously, of the three sites from the industrial age, only the one in London had high levels of worm infestation. Considering how dirty and cramped 19th-century British cities were, one might expect disease to run rampant (tuberculosis certainly did), but the sites in Oxford and Birmingham were almost devoid of worms. The researchers theorized that this was because of access to clean well water. Or maybe worms just have a thing for London. [Editor’s note: It’s probably not that.]

No wonder we feel worse after naps

Some of us have hectic schedules that may make a nap feel more necessary. It’s common knowledge that naps shouldn’t be too long – maybe 20 minutes or so – but if you frequently take 3-hour naps and wake up thinking you’re late for school even though you’re 47 and have your PhD, this LOTME is for you.

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Studies have shown that there is a link between napping during the day and Alzheimer’s/cognitive decline, but now we’ve got a double whammy for you: Longer and more frequent napping is linked to worse cognition after a year, and in turn, those with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s are known to nap longer and more frequently during the day.

“We now know that the pathology related to cognitive decline can cause other changes in function,” he said. “It’s really a multisystem disorder, also including difficulty sleeping, changes in movement, changes in body composition, depression symptoms, behavioral changes, etc.,” coauthor Aron Buchman, MD, said in a statement from Rush University Medical Center.

The investigators monitored 1,400 patients over the course of 14 years with wrist bracelets that recorded when a person was not active during the day and considered that a nap.

At the beginning of the study, 75% of the study subjects had no cognitive impairment, 19.5% had some cognitive impairment, and approximately 4% had Alzheimer’s. Napping during the day only increased about 11 minutes a year for those with no signs of cognitive impairment, but those who showed significantly more signs of cognitive decline doubled their nap time and those actually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s tripled theirs.

The investigators did not imply that napping causes Alzheimer’s, but they noted that people who are older and nap more than an hour a day are 40% more likely to be at risk. It is something to consider and monitor.

Sometimes, after all, a nap seems like the best idea ever, but more often than not we wake up feeling 10 times worse. Our bodies may be giving us a heads up.

Pokemon Go away depression

The summer of 2016 was a great time if you happened to be a fan of Pokemon. Which is quite a lot of people. For almost 20 years millions have enjoyed the games and animated series, but Pokemon Go brought the thrill of catching Pokemon to life in a whole new way. For the first time, you could go out into the world and pretend you were a real Pokemon trainer, and everywhere you went, there would be others like you.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The ability to chase after Pikachu and Charizard in real life (well, augmented reality, but close enough) seemed to bring people a lot of joy, but seemed is never good enough for science. Can’t have anecdotes, we need data! So researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science conducted a study into how Pokemon Go affected local Internet search rates of depression as the game was released slowly around the world.

Through analyzing Google Trend data of words like “depression,” “anxiety,” and “stress,” the researchers found that the release of Pokemon Go was significantly associated with a noticeable, though short-term, drop in depression-related Internet searches. Location-based augmented reality games may alleviate symptoms of mild depression, the researchers said, as they encourage physical activity, face-to-face socialization, and exposure to nature, though they added that simply going outside is likely not enough to combat clinical cases of severe depression.

Still, augmented reality games represent a viable target for public health investment, since they’re easy to use and inexpensive to make. That said, we’re not sure we want the FDA or CDC making a new Pokemon Go game. They’d probably end up filling the streets with Mr. Mime. And no one would leave their house for that.
 

And now a word from our sponsor

How many times has this happened to you? You need to repair a jet engine, inspect a nuclear reactor cooling system, AND perform bowel surgery, but you can’t carry around all the heavy, old-fashioned tools needed for those jobs.

Well, we’ve got one tool that can do it all! And that tool is a snake. No, it’s a robot.

Nottingham University

It’s both! It’s the COntinuum roBot for Remote Applications. COBRA is the robot that looks like a snake! A snake that’s 5 meters long but only as thick as a pencil (about 9 mm in diameter). A robot with “extraordinary manoeuvrability and responsiveness due to … a compliant-joint structure and multiple continuous sections that enable it to bend at around 90 degrees,” according to the team at the University of Nottingham (England) that developed it.

COBRA comes equipped with a stereovision camera and a miniature cutting tool to perform complex industrial repair, but other devices can be interchanged for possible medical use.

COBRA and its joystick-like controller were designed to be easy to use. Dr. Oladejo Olaleye, the ear, nose, and throat and robotic surgeon at University Hospitals of Leicester who is directing its surgical development, was able to use COBRA on a dummy after just 5 minutes of training. He called it “the future of diagnostic endoscopy and therapeutic surgery.”

Don’t be the last aircraft engineer/nuclear technician/surgeon on your block to have this ultraslender, ultramaneuverable reptilian repair robot. Get your COBRA now! Operators are standing by.

Disclaimer: Robot is still under development and not yet on sale.

Rule, (worm) Britannia!

As long as there have been people, there have been parasitic worms living in their guts. Helminth infection is a continuing and largely ignored crisis in poor, tropical nations, though worm-based diseases have been basically eliminated from wealthier countries.

English Heritage

This wasn’t always the case, however, as a study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases (now there’s a specific topic) has found. The researchers detail the glorious history of helminth infestation in the United Kingdom from the Victorian era all the way back to prehistory, scouring hundreds of skeletons found in 17 sites across the country for eggs, which can remain intact for thousands of years.

The researchers found that two eras in particular had very high rates of infection. Unsurprisingly, the late medieval era was one of them, but the other is less obvious. The Romans were famous for their hygiene, their baths, and their plumbing, but maybe they also should be famous for the abundance of worms in their bellies. That doesn’t make sense at first: Shouldn’t good hygiene lower infection? The benefits of a good sewer system, however, are lessened when the waste containing said infectious organisms is used to fertilize crops. Recycling is generally a good thing, but less so when you’re recycling parasitic worms.

Curiously, of the three sites from the industrial age, only the one in London had high levels of worm infestation. Considering how dirty and cramped 19th-century British cities were, one might expect disease to run rampant (tuberculosis certainly did), but the sites in Oxford and Birmingham were almost devoid of worms. The researchers theorized that this was because of access to clean well water. Or maybe worms just have a thing for London. [Editor’s note: It’s probably not that.]

No wonder we feel worse after naps

Some of us have hectic schedules that may make a nap feel more necessary. It’s common knowledge that naps shouldn’t be too long – maybe 20 minutes or so – but if you frequently take 3-hour naps and wake up thinking you’re late for school even though you’re 47 and have your PhD, this LOTME is for you.

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Studies have shown that there is a link between napping during the day and Alzheimer’s/cognitive decline, but now we’ve got a double whammy for you: Longer and more frequent napping is linked to worse cognition after a year, and in turn, those with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s are known to nap longer and more frequently during the day.

“We now know that the pathology related to cognitive decline can cause other changes in function,” he said. “It’s really a multisystem disorder, also including difficulty sleeping, changes in movement, changes in body composition, depression symptoms, behavioral changes, etc.,” coauthor Aron Buchman, MD, said in a statement from Rush University Medical Center.

The investigators monitored 1,400 patients over the course of 14 years with wrist bracelets that recorded when a person was not active during the day and considered that a nap.

At the beginning of the study, 75% of the study subjects had no cognitive impairment, 19.5% had some cognitive impairment, and approximately 4% had Alzheimer’s. Napping during the day only increased about 11 minutes a year for those with no signs of cognitive impairment, but those who showed significantly more signs of cognitive decline doubled their nap time and those actually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s tripled theirs.

The investigators did not imply that napping causes Alzheimer’s, but they noted that people who are older and nap more than an hour a day are 40% more likely to be at risk. It is something to consider and monitor.

Sometimes, after all, a nap seems like the best idea ever, but more often than not we wake up feeling 10 times worse. Our bodies may be giving us a heads up.

Pokemon Go away depression

The summer of 2016 was a great time if you happened to be a fan of Pokemon. Which is quite a lot of people. For almost 20 years millions have enjoyed the games and animated series, but Pokemon Go brought the thrill of catching Pokemon to life in a whole new way. For the first time, you could go out into the world and pretend you were a real Pokemon trainer, and everywhere you went, there would be others like you.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The ability to chase after Pikachu and Charizard in real life (well, augmented reality, but close enough) seemed to bring people a lot of joy, but seemed is never good enough for science. Can’t have anecdotes, we need data! So researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science conducted a study into how Pokemon Go affected local Internet search rates of depression as the game was released slowly around the world.

Through analyzing Google Trend data of words like “depression,” “anxiety,” and “stress,” the researchers found that the release of Pokemon Go was significantly associated with a noticeable, though short-term, drop in depression-related Internet searches. Location-based augmented reality games may alleviate symptoms of mild depression, the researchers said, as they encourage physical activity, face-to-face socialization, and exposure to nature, though they added that simply going outside is likely not enough to combat clinical cases of severe depression.

Still, augmented reality games represent a viable target for public health investment, since they’re easy to use and inexpensive to make. That said, we’re not sure we want the FDA or CDC making a new Pokemon Go game. They’d probably end up filling the streets with Mr. Mime. And no one would leave their house for that.
 

And now a word from our sponsor

How many times has this happened to you? You need to repair a jet engine, inspect a nuclear reactor cooling system, AND perform bowel surgery, but you can’t carry around all the heavy, old-fashioned tools needed for those jobs.

Well, we’ve got one tool that can do it all! And that tool is a snake. No, it’s a robot.

Nottingham University

It’s both! It’s the COntinuum roBot for Remote Applications. COBRA is the robot that looks like a snake! A snake that’s 5 meters long but only as thick as a pencil (about 9 mm in diameter). A robot with “extraordinary manoeuvrability and responsiveness due to … a compliant-joint structure and multiple continuous sections that enable it to bend at around 90 degrees,” according to the team at the University of Nottingham (England) that developed it.

COBRA comes equipped with a stereovision camera and a miniature cutting tool to perform complex industrial repair, but other devices can be interchanged for possible medical use.

COBRA and its joystick-like controller were designed to be easy to use. Dr. Oladejo Olaleye, the ear, nose, and throat and robotic surgeon at University Hospitals of Leicester who is directing its surgical development, was able to use COBRA on a dummy after just 5 minutes of training. He called it “the future of diagnostic endoscopy and therapeutic surgery.”

Don’t be the last aircraft engineer/nuclear technician/surgeon on your block to have this ultraslender, ultramaneuverable reptilian repair robot. Get your COBRA now! Operators are standing by.

Disclaimer: Robot is still under development and not yet on sale.

Rule, (worm) Britannia!

As long as there have been people, there have been parasitic worms living in their guts. Helminth infection is a continuing and largely ignored crisis in poor, tropical nations, though worm-based diseases have been basically eliminated from wealthier countries.

English Heritage

This wasn’t always the case, however, as a study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases (now there’s a specific topic) has found. The researchers detail the glorious history of helminth infestation in the United Kingdom from the Victorian era all the way back to prehistory, scouring hundreds of skeletons found in 17 sites across the country for eggs, which can remain intact for thousands of years.

The researchers found that two eras in particular had very high rates of infection. Unsurprisingly, the late medieval era was one of them, but the other is less obvious. The Romans were famous for their hygiene, their baths, and their plumbing, but maybe they also should be famous for the abundance of worms in their bellies. That doesn’t make sense at first: Shouldn’t good hygiene lower infection? The benefits of a good sewer system, however, are lessened when the waste containing said infectious organisms is used to fertilize crops. Recycling is generally a good thing, but less so when you’re recycling parasitic worms.

Curiously, of the three sites from the industrial age, only the one in London had high levels of worm infestation. Considering how dirty and cramped 19th-century British cities were, one might expect disease to run rampant (tuberculosis certainly did), but the sites in Oxford and Birmingham were almost devoid of worms. The researchers theorized that this was because of access to clean well water. Or maybe worms just have a thing for London. [Editor’s note: It’s probably not that.]

A recently published multinational cohort study may be the largest to date that’s found the age of asthma onset is an integral factor in defining the severity of disease and the frequency of comorbidities.

“It’s very simple to ask your patient: ‘Did you have asthma as a child? When did your asthma start?’ ” coauthor Guy Brusselle, MD, a professor at the University of Ghent (Belgium), said in an interview. “You do not need expensive investigations, CT scans or proteomics or genomics; just two simple questions.”

The retrospective cohort study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, combined national electronic health records databases from five different countries – the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark – that included 586,436 adult asthma patients. The study divided the patients into three subtypes: childhood-onset asthma, meaning a diagnosis before age 18 (n = 81,691); adult-onset disease, defined as a diagnosis between ages 18 and 40 (n = 218,184); and late onset, defined as a diagnosis made after age 40 (n = 286,561).

Dr. Brusselle said the study found stark differences in characteristics between the three subtypes, including an increasing risk for women with later age of onset. Across the five databases, females comprised approximately 45% of those with childhood-onset asthma, but about 60% of those with later-onset disease, Dr. Brusselle said.

As for characteristics of asthma, 7.2% of the cohort (n = 42,611) had severe asthma, but the proportion was highest in late-onset asthma, 10% versus 5% in adult onset and 3% in childhood onset. The percentage of uncontrolled asthma followed a similar trend: 8%, 6%, and 0.4% in the respective treatment groups.

The most common comorbidities were atopic disorders (31%) and overweight/obesity (50%). The prevalence of atopic disorders was highest in the childhood-onset group, 45% versus 35%, and 25% in the adult-onset and late-onset patients. However, the trend for overweight/obesity was reversed: 30%, 43%, and 61%, respectively.

“The larger differences were when late-onset asthma was compared to adult-onset asthma with respect to comorbidities,” Dr. Brusselle said. “The late-onset asthma patients more frequently had nasal polyposis.” These patients typically lose their sense of smell, as in COVID-19. However, in nasal polyposis the loss is chronic rather than transient.

Pulmonologists should be attuned to the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the late-onset group, Dr. Brusselle said. “We know that obesity is an important risk factor for diabetes, and then obesity is also associated with gastroesophageal reflux – and we know that gastroesophageal reflux is a risk factor for asthma exacerbations.”

Smaller studies have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the relationships between asthma severity and age of onset, Dr. Brusselle said. What’s notable about this study is its size and the consistency of findings across different national databases.

“In childhood onset you need to watch for different allergies – atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis – but in late-onset asthma look for obesity, diabetes and reflux disease, and nasal polyposis,” he said.

Sally E. Wenzel, MD, professor at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, concurred that the size of this study makes it noteworthy.

“It’s certainly far and away the largest study of its kind that’s ever been done, and it’s multinational,” she said in an interview. “Just doing a study like this with thousands and thousands of patients is a step in the right direction. That’s probably what’s very unique about it, to bring all of these clinical cohorts as it were together and to look at what is the relationship of the age of onset.”

She also said the study is unique in how it delineates the groups by age of onset.

“In addition to this concept that there’s a difference in asthma by the age that you got diagnosed with it, I think it’s also important to just remember that when any physician, be they a specialist or nonspecialist, sees a patient with asthma, they should ask them when did their symptoms develop,” she said. “These are really simple questions that don’t take any sophisticated training and don’t take any sophisticated instruments to measure, but they can be really helpful.”

GlaxoSmithKline supplied a grant for the study. Dr. Brusselle disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. A study coauthor is an employee of GSK. Dr. Wenzel reported no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published multinational cohort study may be the largest to date that’s found the age of asthma onset is an integral factor in defining the severity of disease and the frequency of comorbidities.

“It’s very simple to ask your patient: ‘Did you have asthma as a child? When did your asthma start?’ ” coauthor Guy Brusselle, MD, a professor at the University of Ghent (Belgium), said in an interview. “You do not need expensive investigations, CT scans or proteomics or genomics; just two simple questions.”

The retrospective cohort study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, combined national electronic health records databases from five different countries – the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark – that included 586,436 adult asthma patients. The study divided the patients into three subtypes: childhood-onset asthma, meaning a diagnosis before age 18 (n = 81,691); adult-onset disease, defined as a diagnosis between ages 18 and 40 (n = 218,184); and late onset, defined as a diagnosis made after age 40 (n = 286,561).

Dr. Brusselle said the study found stark differences in characteristics between the three subtypes, including an increasing risk for women with later age of onset. Across the five databases, females comprised approximately 45% of those with childhood-onset asthma, but about 60% of those with later-onset disease, Dr. Brusselle said.

As for characteristics of asthma, 7.2% of the cohort (n = 42,611) had severe asthma, but the proportion was highest in late-onset asthma, 10% versus 5% in adult onset and 3% in childhood onset. The percentage of uncontrolled asthma followed a similar trend: 8%, 6%, and 0.4% in the respective treatment groups.

The most common comorbidities were atopic disorders (31%) and overweight/obesity (50%). The prevalence of atopic disorders was highest in the childhood-onset group, 45% versus 35%, and 25% in the adult-onset and late-onset patients. However, the trend for overweight/obesity was reversed: 30%, 43%, and 61%, respectively.

“The larger differences were when late-onset asthma was compared to adult-onset asthma with respect to comorbidities,” Dr. Brusselle said. “The late-onset asthma patients more frequently had nasal polyposis.” These patients typically lose their sense of smell, as in COVID-19. However, in nasal polyposis the loss is chronic rather than transient.

Pulmonologists should be attuned to the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the late-onset group, Dr. Brusselle said. “We know that obesity is an important risk factor for diabetes, and then obesity is also associated with gastroesophageal reflux – and we know that gastroesophageal reflux is a risk factor for asthma exacerbations.”

Smaller studies have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the relationships between asthma severity and age of onset, Dr. Brusselle said. What’s notable about this study is its size and the consistency of findings across different national databases.

“In childhood onset you need to watch for different allergies – atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis – but in late-onset asthma look for obesity, diabetes and reflux disease, and nasal polyposis,” he said.

Sally E. Wenzel, MD, professor at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, concurred that the size of this study makes it noteworthy.

“It’s certainly far and away the largest study of its kind that’s ever been done, and it’s multinational,” she said in an interview. “Just doing a study like this with thousands and thousands of patients is a step in the right direction. That’s probably what’s very unique about it, to bring all of these clinical cohorts as it were together and to look at what is the relationship of the age of onset.”

She also said the study is unique in how it delineates the groups by age of onset.

“In addition to this concept that there’s a difference in asthma by the age that you got diagnosed with it, I think it’s also important to just remember that when any physician, be they a specialist or nonspecialist, sees a patient with asthma, they should ask them when did their symptoms develop,” she said. “These are really simple questions that don’t take any sophisticated training and don’t take any sophisticated instruments to measure, but they can be really helpful.”

GlaxoSmithKline supplied a grant for the study. Dr. Brusselle disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. A study coauthor is an employee of GSK. Dr. Wenzel reported no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published multinational cohort study may be the largest to date that’s found the age of asthma onset is an integral factor in defining the severity of disease and the frequency of comorbidities.

“It’s very simple to ask your patient: ‘Did you have asthma as a child? When did your asthma start?’ ” coauthor Guy Brusselle, MD, a professor at the University of Ghent (Belgium), said in an interview. “You do not need expensive investigations, CT scans or proteomics or genomics; just two simple questions.”

The retrospective cohort study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, combined national electronic health records databases from five different countries – the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark – that included 586,436 adult asthma patients. The study divided the patients into three subtypes: childhood-onset asthma, meaning a diagnosis before age 18 (n = 81,691); adult-onset disease, defined as a diagnosis between ages 18 and 40 (n = 218,184); and late onset, defined as a diagnosis made after age 40 (n = 286,561).

Dr. Brusselle said the study found stark differences in characteristics between the three subtypes, including an increasing risk for women with later age of onset. Across the five databases, females comprised approximately 45% of those with childhood-onset asthma, but about 60% of those with later-onset disease, Dr. Brusselle said.

As for characteristics of asthma, 7.2% of the cohort (n = 42,611) had severe asthma, but the proportion was highest in late-onset asthma, 10% versus 5% in adult onset and 3% in childhood onset. The percentage of uncontrolled asthma followed a similar trend: 8%, 6%, and 0.4% in the respective treatment groups.

The most common comorbidities were atopic disorders (31%) and overweight/obesity (50%). The prevalence of atopic disorders was highest in the childhood-onset group, 45% versus 35%, and 25% in the adult-onset and late-onset patients. However, the trend for overweight/obesity was reversed: 30%, 43%, and 61%, respectively.

“The larger differences were when late-onset asthma was compared to adult-onset asthma with respect to comorbidities,” Dr. Brusselle said. “The late-onset asthma patients more frequently had nasal polyposis.” These patients typically lose their sense of smell, as in COVID-19. However, in nasal polyposis the loss is chronic rather than transient.

Pulmonologists should be attuned to the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the late-onset group, Dr. Brusselle said. “We know that obesity is an important risk factor for diabetes, and then obesity is also associated with gastroesophageal reflux – and we know that gastroesophageal reflux is a risk factor for asthma exacerbations.”

Smaller studies have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the relationships between asthma severity and age of onset, Dr. Brusselle said. What’s notable about this study is its size and the consistency of findings across different national databases.

“In childhood onset you need to watch for different allergies – atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis – but in late-onset asthma look for obesity, diabetes and reflux disease, and nasal polyposis,” he said.

Sally E. Wenzel, MD, professor at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, concurred that the size of this study makes it noteworthy.

“It’s certainly far and away the largest study of its kind that’s ever been done, and it’s multinational,” she said in an interview. “Just doing a study like this with thousands and thousands of patients is a step in the right direction. That’s probably what’s very unique about it, to bring all of these clinical cohorts as it were together and to look at what is the relationship of the age of onset.”

She also said the study is unique in how it delineates the groups by age of onset.

“In addition to this concept that there’s a difference in asthma by the age that you got diagnosed with it, I think it’s also important to just remember that when any physician, be they a specialist or nonspecialist, sees a patient with asthma, they should ask them when did their symptoms develop,” she said. “These are really simple questions that don’t take any sophisticated training and don’t take any sophisticated instruments to measure, but they can be really helpful.”

GlaxoSmithKline supplied a grant for the study. Dr. Brusselle disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. A study coauthor is an employee of GSK. Dr. Wenzel reported no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling five lots of Accupril (quinapril HCI) due to unacceptable levels of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen, the company announced.

The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.

Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.

To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.

Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022. 

National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.

Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.

Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling five lots of Accupril (quinapril HCI) due to unacceptable levels of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen, the company announced.

The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.

Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.

To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.

Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022. 

National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.

Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.

Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling five lots of Accupril (quinapril HCI) due to unacceptable levels of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen, the company announced.

The Accupril recall comes one month after Pfizer recalled six lots of Accuretic (Quinapril HCI/hydrochlorathiazide) tablets for the same problem.

Accupril is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and management of heart failure when added to conventional therapy, including diuretics and/or digitalis.

To date, Pfizer is not aware of any reports of adverse events related to the Accupril recall, and the company believes the benefit/risk profile remains positive based on currently available data.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” the company said April 22 in a news release.

Patients currently taking the recalled products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

The recalled Accupril tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed nationwide to wholesalers and distributors in the United States and Puerto Rico from December 2019 to April 2022. 

National drug codes (NDC), lot numbers, and expiration dates are listed in the company announcement posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-345-0481 Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET for instructions on how to return the product and obtain reimbursement.

Healthcare providers with questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 9 PM ET.

Adverse reactions or quality problems related to this recall should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.