CHEST Physician

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

HOUSTON — Narcolepsy is associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), independent of common comorbid conditions and medications commonly used to treat the chronic sleep disorder, according to two new studies.

A nationwide analysis revealed that people with narcolepsy had a 77% higher risk for CVD and an 82% higher risk for MACE than those without the disorder.

“These findings indicate that it is important for clinicians to regularly monitor patients for cardiovascular disease and take this into consideration when recommending specific treatments for narcolepsy,” study investigators Christopher Kaufmann, PhD; Munaza Riaz, PharmD, MPhil; and Rakesh Bhattacharjee, MD, told this news organization.

“Additionally, physicians should consider monitoring the presence of other health conditions as contributing factors to the risk of CVD,” they said. Dr. Kaufmann and Dr. Riaz are with the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and Dr. Bhattacharjee is with the University of California, San Diego.

They presented their research at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Independent Risk Factor

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke reports an estimated 125,000 to 200,000 people in the United States live with narcolepsy. The condition often coexists with other common health conditions including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), diabetes, and other comorbidities, which can all contribute to the risk for CVD.

This raises doubt as to whether narcolepsy itself directly leads to CVD or if it is the result of these comorbid health conditions. Additionally, some medications used to treat narcolepsy carry their own cardiovascular risks.

Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare supplemental databases, the researchers identified 34,562 adults with a diagnosis of narcolepsy and a propensity-matched comparison cohort of 100,405 adults without narcolepsy. The patients had a mean age of 40 years, and 62% were women.

Compared with adults without narcolepsy, those with the chronic sleep disorder that causes overwhelming daytime drowsiness had a 77% increased risk for any CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77) and an 82% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.82).

They also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 2.04), heart failure or myocardial infarction (MI; HR, 1.64), and atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.58).

The results were similar in a separate analysis of the same population that also controlled for baseline use of stimulants, oxybates, and wake-promoting agents — medications commonly used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy.

In this analysis, narcolepsy was associated with an 89% higher risk for CVD (HR, 1.89) and a 95% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.95). The risk for any stroke (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.90), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.66), and MI (HR, 1.93) was also higher in those with narcolepsy.

“Our study found that even after considering the presence of health conditions like obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and even depression, as well as medication use, there still appears to be an independent relationship between narcolepsy and CVD,” the investigators said.

They cautioned that the mechanisms explaining the link between CVD and narcolepsy are unclear and warrant further study.

“Sleep fragmentation is a hallmark of narcolepsy, and it is speculated that this fragmentation, which may trigger disturbances in autonomic function, predisposes individuals to CVD. In rodent models, a possible link has been observed between hypocretin — a central neurotransmitter that is reduced or deficient in patients with narcolepsy — and atherosclerosis.

“However, it remains uncertain whether this is the primary mechanism related to CVD,” they commented.
 

Compelling Evidence for Higher CVD

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, called for narcolepsy to be recognized as a significant contributor to higher CVD risk.

“Given the compelling evidence linking narcolepsy to a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, it is crucial that narcolepsy be included in clinical guidelines and risk assessment tools alongside other known risk factors,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in this research.

“Physicians and health care providers should proactively address the increased cardiovascular risk associated with narcolepsy by incorporating preventive strategies and interventions into the management of patients with this condition,” Dr. Lakhan suggested.

Regular CVD screening, a healthier lifestyle, and targeted therapies could all decrease cardiac risk, Dr. Lakhan added.

“Ultimately, novel disease-modifying therapies for narcolepsy should target the core mechanisms driving the increased cardiovascular risk associated with this condition. By elucidating the specific biological pathways and developing targeted therapies that address the unique challenges faced by narcolepsy patients, we can effectively mitigate the risk,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The studies were funded by the Sleep Research Society Foundation. The authors and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HOUSTON — Narcolepsy is associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), independent of common comorbid conditions and medications commonly used to treat the chronic sleep disorder, according to two new studies.

A nationwide analysis revealed that people with narcolepsy had a 77% higher risk for CVD and an 82% higher risk for MACE than those without the disorder.

“These findings indicate that it is important for clinicians to regularly monitor patients for cardiovascular disease and take this into consideration when recommending specific treatments for narcolepsy,” study investigators Christopher Kaufmann, PhD; Munaza Riaz, PharmD, MPhil; and Rakesh Bhattacharjee, MD, told this news organization.

“Additionally, physicians should consider monitoring the presence of other health conditions as contributing factors to the risk of CVD,” they said. Dr. Kaufmann and Dr. Riaz are with the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and Dr. Bhattacharjee is with the University of California, San Diego.

They presented their research at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Independent Risk Factor

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke reports an estimated 125,000 to 200,000 people in the United States live with narcolepsy. The condition often coexists with other common health conditions including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), diabetes, and other comorbidities, which can all contribute to the risk for CVD.

This raises doubt as to whether narcolepsy itself directly leads to CVD or if it is the result of these comorbid health conditions. Additionally, some medications used to treat narcolepsy carry their own cardiovascular risks.

Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare supplemental databases, the researchers identified 34,562 adults with a diagnosis of narcolepsy and a propensity-matched comparison cohort of 100,405 adults without narcolepsy. The patients had a mean age of 40 years, and 62% were women.

Compared with adults without narcolepsy, those with the chronic sleep disorder that causes overwhelming daytime drowsiness had a 77% increased risk for any CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77) and an 82% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.82).

They also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 2.04), heart failure or myocardial infarction (MI; HR, 1.64), and atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.58).

The results were similar in a separate analysis of the same population that also controlled for baseline use of stimulants, oxybates, and wake-promoting agents — medications commonly used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy.

In this analysis, narcolepsy was associated with an 89% higher risk for CVD (HR, 1.89) and a 95% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.95). The risk for any stroke (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.90), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.66), and MI (HR, 1.93) was also higher in those with narcolepsy.

“Our study found that even after considering the presence of health conditions like obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and even depression, as well as medication use, there still appears to be an independent relationship between narcolepsy and CVD,” the investigators said.

They cautioned that the mechanisms explaining the link between CVD and narcolepsy are unclear and warrant further study.

“Sleep fragmentation is a hallmark of narcolepsy, and it is speculated that this fragmentation, which may trigger disturbances in autonomic function, predisposes individuals to CVD. In rodent models, a possible link has been observed between hypocretin — a central neurotransmitter that is reduced or deficient in patients with narcolepsy — and atherosclerosis.

“However, it remains uncertain whether this is the primary mechanism related to CVD,” they commented.
 

Compelling Evidence for Higher CVD

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, called for narcolepsy to be recognized as a significant contributor to higher CVD risk.

“Given the compelling evidence linking narcolepsy to a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, it is crucial that narcolepsy be included in clinical guidelines and risk assessment tools alongside other known risk factors,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in this research.

“Physicians and health care providers should proactively address the increased cardiovascular risk associated with narcolepsy by incorporating preventive strategies and interventions into the management of patients with this condition,” Dr. Lakhan suggested.

Regular CVD screening, a healthier lifestyle, and targeted therapies could all decrease cardiac risk, Dr. Lakhan added.

“Ultimately, novel disease-modifying therapies for narcolepsy should target the core mechanisms driving the increased cardiovascular risk associated with this condition. By elucidating the specific biological pathways and developing targeted therapies that address the unique challenges faced by narcolepsy patients, we can effectively mitigate the risk,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The studies were funded by the Sleep Research Society Foundation. The authors and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HOUSTON — Narcolepsy is associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), independent of common comorbid conditions and medications commonly used to treat the chronic sleep disorder, according to two new studies.

A nationwide analysis revealed that people with narcolepsy had a 77% higher risk for CVD and an 82% higher risk for MACE than those without the disorder.

“These findings indicate that it is important for clinicians to regularly monitor patients for cardiovascular disease and take this into consideration when recommending specific treatments for narcolepsy,” study investigators Christopher Kaufmann, PhD; Munaza Riaz, PharmD, MPhil; and Rakesh Bhattacharjee, MD, told this news organization.

“Additionally, physicians should consider monitoring the presence of other health conditions as contributing factors to the risk of CVD,” they said. Dr. Kaufmann and Dr. Riaz are with the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and Dr. Bhattacharjee is with the University of California, San Diego.

They presented their research at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Independent Risk Factor

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke reports an estimated 125,000 to 200,000 people in the United States live with narcolepsy. The condition often coexists with other common health conditions including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), diabetes, and other comorbidities, which can all contribute to the risk for CVD.

This raises doubt as to whether narcolepsy itself directly leads to CVD or if it is the result of these comorbid health conditions. Additionally, some medications used to treat narcolepsy carry their own cardiovascular risks.

Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare supplemental databases, the researchers identified 34,562 adults with a diagnosis of narcolepsy and a propensity-matched comparison cohort of 100,405 adults without narcolepsy. The patients had a mean age of 40 years, and 62% were women.

Compared with adults without narcolepsy, those with the chronic sleep disorder that causes overwhelming daytime drowsiness had a 77% increased risk for any CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77) and an 82% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.82).

They also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 2.04), heart failure or myocardial infarction (MI; HR, 1.64), and atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.58).

The results were similar in a separate analysis of the same population that also controlled for baseline use of stimulants, oxybates, and wake-promoting agents — medications commonly used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy.

In this analysis, narcolepsy was associated with an 89% higher risk for CVD (HR, 1.89) and a 95% increased risk for MACE (HR, 1.95). The risk for any stroke (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.90), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.66), and MI (HR, 1.93) was also higher in those with narcolepsy.

“Our study found that even after considering the presence of health conditions like obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and even depression, as well as medication use, there still appears to be an independent relationship between narcolepsy and CVD,” the investigators said.

They cautioned that the mechanisms explaining the link between CVD and narcolepsy are unclear and warrant further study.

“Sleep fragmentation is a hallmark of narcolepsy, and it is speculated that this fragmentation, which may trigger disturbances in autonomic function, predisposes individuals to CVD. In rodent models, a possible link has been observed between hypocretin — a central neurotransmitter that is reduced or deficient in patients with narcolepsy — and atherosclerosis.

“However, it remains uncertain whether this is the primary mechanism related to CVD,” they commented.
 

Compelling Evidence for Higher CVD

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, called for narcolepsy to be recognized as a significant contributor to higher CVD risk.

“Given the compelling evidence linking narcolepsy to a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, it is crucial that narcolepsy be included in clinical guidelines and risk assessment tools alongside other known risk factors,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in this research.

“Physicians and health care providers should proactively address the increased cardiovascular risk associated with narcolepsy by incorporating preventive strategies and interventions into the management of patients with this condition,” Dr. Lakhan suggested.

Regular CVD screening, a healthier lifestyle, and targeted therapies could all decrease cardiac risk, Dr. Lakhan added.

“Ultimately, novel disease-modifying therapies for narcolepsy should target the core mechanisms driving the increased cardiovascular risk associated with this condition. By elucidating the specific biological pathways and developing targeted therapies that address the unique challenges faced by narcolepsy patients, we can effectively mitigate the risk,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The studies were funded by the Sleep Research Society Foundation. The authors and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.