CHEST Physician

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.

But it’s not right. Not always.

Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1. 

I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001. 

Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.

A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?

0.5024. Almost useless.

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model. 

Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information. 

This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be. It doesn’t seem like these biomarkers will help us in our effort to risk-stratify people. So, we move on to other domains. Perhaps social determinants of health would improve risk prediction. Perhaps insurance status. Perhaps environmental exposures. Perhaps markers of stress.

We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.

But it’s not right. Not always.

Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1. 

I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001. 

Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.

A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?

0.5024. Almost useless.

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model. 

Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information. 

This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be. It doesn’t seem like these biomarkers will help us in our effort to risk-stratify people. So, we move on to other domains. Perhaps social determinants of health would improve risk prediction. Perhaps insurance status. Perhaps environmental exposures. Perhaps markers of stress.

We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.

But it’s not right. Not always.

Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1. 

I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001. 

Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.

A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?

0.5024. Almost useless.

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. WIlson

Dr. Wilson

Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model. 

Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information. 

This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be. It doesn’t seem like these biomarkers will help us in our effort to risk-stratify people. So, we move on to other domains. Perhaps social determinants of health would improve risk prediction. Perhaps insurance status. Perhaps environmental exposures. Perhaps markers of stress.

We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Blood pressure (BP) self-monitoring and medication management may be better than usual care for controlling hypertension, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a randomized, unblinded clinical trial included patients aged ≥ 40 years with uncontrolled hypertension in Valencia, Spain, between 2017 and 2020.
• The 111 patients in the intervention group received educational materials and instructions for self-monitoring of BP with a home monitor and medication adjustment as needed without contacting their healthcare clinicians.
• The 108 patients in the control group received usual care, including education on BP control.
• After 24 months, researchers recorded BP levels, the number of people who achieved a target BP (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg), adverse events, quality of life, behavioral changes, and health service use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group had a lower average systolic BP reading at 24 months than patients who received usual care (adjusted mean difference, -3.4 mm Hg).
• Patients in the intervention group also had a lower average diastolic BP reading than usual care (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 mm Hg).
• The percentage of people who achieved the target BP was similar in both groups (64% in the intervention group compared with 54% in the control group).
• Researchers found no difference between groups in terms of adverse events, use of health services, behavioral changes such as smoking status or body weight, or quality of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that simple, inexpensive, and easy-to-implement self-management interventions have the potential to improve the long-term control of hypertension in routine clinical practice.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno, PhD, Pharm D, head of the Health Services Research & Pharmacoepidemiology Unit at Fisabio Research Institute in Valencia, Spain.

LIMITATIONS:

Some study participants were lost to follow-up due to COVID-19 restrictions. The trial was unblinded, which may have led to biases among patients and clinicians. Clinicians treated both the control and intervention groups. The results may not be extrapolated to those with controlled hypertension, very high BP, or people who are pregnant because they were not included in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants from RTI Health Solutions or personal fees from GSK and MSD outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III at the Spanish Ministry of Research, Innovation and Universities, the European Regional Development Fund, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Blood pressure (BP) self-monitoring and medication management may be better than usual care for controlling hypertension, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a randomized, unblinded clinical trial included patients aged ≥ 40 years with uncontrolled hypertension in Valencia, Spain, between 2017 and 2020.
• The 111 patients in the intervention group received educational materials and instructions for self-monitoring of BP with a home monitor and medication adjustment as needed without contacting their healthcare clinicians.
• The 108 patients in the control group received usual care, including education on BP control.
• After 24 months, researchers recorded BP levels, the number of people who achieved a target BP (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg), adverse events, quality of life, behavioral changes, and health service use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group had a lower average systolic BP reading at 24 months than patients who received usual care (adjusted mean difference, -3.4 mm Hg).
• Patients in the intervention group also had a lower average diastolic BP reading than usual care (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 mm Hg).
• The percentage of people who achieved the target BP was similar in both groups (64% in the intervention group compared with 54% in the control group).
• Researchers found no difference between groups in terms of adverse events, use of health services, behavioral changes such as smoking status or body weight, or quality of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that simple, inexpensive, and easy-to-implement self-management interventions have the potential to improve the long-term control of hypertension in routine clinical practice.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno, PhD, Pharm D, head of the Health Services Research & Pharmacoepidemiology Unit at Fisabio Research Institute in Valencia, Spain.

LIMITATIONS:

Some study participants were lost to follow-up due to COVID-19 restrictions. The trial was unblinded, which may have led to biases among patients and clinicians. Clinicians treated both the control and intervention groups. The results may not be extrapolated to those with controlled hypertension, very high BP, or people who are pregnant because they were not included in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants from RTI Health Solutions or personal fees from GSK and MSD outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III at the Spanish Ministry of Research, Innovation and Universities, the European Regional Development Fund, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Blood pressure (BP) self-monitoring and medication management may be better than usual care for controlling hypertension, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a randomized, unblinded clinical trial included patients aged ≥ 40 years with uncontrolled hypertension in Valencia, Spain, between 2017 and 2020.
• The 111 patients in the intervention group received educational materials and instructions for self-monitoring of BP with a home monitor and medication adjustment as needed without contacting their healthcare clinicians.
• The 108 patients in the control group received usual care, including education on BP control.
• After 24 months, researchers recorded BP levels, the number of people who achieved a target BP (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg), adverse events, quality of life, behavioral changes, and health service use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group had a lower average systolic BP reading at 24 months than patients who received usual care (adjusted mean difference, -3.4 mm Hg).
• Patients in the intervention group also had a lower average diastolic BP reading than usual care (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 mm Hg).
• The percentage of people who achieved the target BP was similar in both groups (64% in the intervention group compared with 54% in the control group).
• Researchers found no difference between groups in terms of adverse events, use of health services, behavioral changes such as smoking status or body weight, or quality of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that simple, inexpensive, and easy-to-implement self-management interventions have the potential to improve the long-term control of hypertension in routine clinical practice.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno, PhD, Pharm D, head of the Health Services Research & Pharmacoepidemiology Unit at Fisabio Research Institute in Valencia, Spain.

LIMITATIONS:

Some study participants were lost to follow-up due to COVID-19 restrictions. The trial was unblinded, which may have led to biases among patients and clinicians. Clinicians treated both the control and intervention groups. The results may not be extrapolated to those with controlled hypertension, very high BP, or people who are pregnant because they were not included in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants from RTI Health Solutions or personal fees from GSK and MSD outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III at the Spanish Ministry of Research, Innovation and Universities, the European Regional Development Fund, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.

An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.

University of Louisville

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.

Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.

Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.

Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urges clinicians to consider the possibility of HPAI A (H5N1) infection in people who show signs and symptoms of acute respiratory illness, including conjunctivitis, who have had close contact with potentially infected sick or dead birds, livestock, or other animals within the week before the onset of symptoms.

Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.

Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
 

Advice for Clinicians

Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.

Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.

We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.

The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.

An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.

University of Louisville

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.

Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.

Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.

Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urges clinicians to consider the possibility of HPAI A (H5N1) infection in people who show signs and symptoms of acute respiratory illness, including conjunctivitis, who have had close contact with potentially infected sick or dead birds, livestock, or other animals within the week before the onset of symptoms.

Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.

Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
 

Advice for Clinicians

Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.

Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.

We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.

The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

Imagine this: A 15-year-old male presents to an urgent care center with a one-day history of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. He is mildly tachypneic with bilateral scattered crackles on lung exam. A rapid test for COVID-19 and influenza is positive for influenza A — a surprising result in June.

An oxygen saturation of 90% prompts transfer to the emergency department at the local children’s hospital. The emergency medicine fellow is skeptical of the presumptive diagnosis. Influenza in the summer in a boy who had not traveled outside his small hometown in the southeastern United States? A respiratory viral panel also detected influenza A, but the specimen did not type as influenza A H1 or H3. This result prompted the laboratory technician to place a call to the ordering physician. “Does this patient have risk factors for avian flu?” the tech asked.

University of Louisville

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) is not a new virus. It was discovered in waterfowl in China in 1996 and has since evolved into multiple clades and subclades, spreading to every continent on the globe except Oceania. It is called highly pathogenic because it kills a large number of the birds that it infects. In 2021, Clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI A(H5N1) viruses emerged in North America, causing large outbreaks in wild birds and farmed poultry populations, including backyard flocks. Sporadic infections have been identified in a diverse group of mammals, including foxes, raccoons, baby goats, bears, and harbor seals. In March of this year, HPAI A(H5N1) was detected for the first time in United States dairy cattle. As we go to press, the United States Department of Agriculture has detected HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle on 36 farms in 9 states.

Human infections are rare, but often severe. Following a 1997 outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in Hong Kong, 18 people were infected and 6 died. Since then, more than 900 cases have been reported in humans and approximately half of these have been fatal. The spectrum of disease includes asymptomatic infection and mild disease, as occurred recently in Texas. A dairy farm worker who was exposed to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) developed conjunctivitis and no other symptoms. An individual infected in Colorado in 2022 had no symptoms other than fatigue and recovered.

Human-to-human transmission was not identified with either of these cases, although very limited, non-sustained transmission has been observed in the past, usually in family members of infected people after prolonged close exposure.

Right now, most people in the United States are not at risk for HPAI A(H5N1) infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urges clinicians to consider the possibility of HPAI A (H5N1) infection in people who show signs and symptoms of acute respiratory illness, including conjunctivitis, who have had close contact with potentially infected sick or dead birds, livestock, or other animals within the week before the onset of symptoms.

Careful history taking with our illustrative and hypothetical case revealed exposure to farm animals but in a state without known cases of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle. State health department officials nevertheless agreed with further testing of the patient. Some influenza diagnostic tests cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can detect some novel influenza A viruses such as HPAI A(H5N1) but cannot distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza A or novel influenza A viruses. Molecular assays may give an “influenza A untypeable” result, as in our case. The CDC urges further testing on these untypeable specimens at local or state public health laboratories. When HPAI A(H5N1) is suspected, a negative result on a commercially available test is not considered sufficient to exclude the possibility of infection.

Our patient was admitted to the hospital and droplet, contact, and airborne precautions were instituted along with antiviral treatment with oseltamivir. Preliminary analysis of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses predicts susceptibility to currently available antivirals. The admitting physician confirmed that the boy had received influenza vaccine in the preceding season but, unfortunately, seasonal vaccines do not protect against HPAI A(H5N1) infection.
 

Advice for Clinicians

Given the recent media attention and public health focus on HPAI A(H5N1), frontline clinicians may start receiving questions from patients and families and perhaps requests for testing. At this point, testing is generally recommended only for individuals with risk factors or known exposures. Healthcare providers with questions about testing are encouraged to reach out to their local or state health departments.

Public health authorities have provided recommendations for protection from HPAI. These include avoiding unprotected exposures to sick or dead wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and wild or domesticated animals (including cattle). People should avoid unprotected contact with animals with suspected or confirmed HPAI A(H5N1)-virus infection or products from these animals, including raw or unpasteurized milk and raw milk products.

We can, however, reassure families that the commercial milk supply is safe. In late April, the FDA reported that HPAI viral fragments were found in one of five retail milk samples by polymerase chain reaction testing. Additional testing did not detect any live, infectious virus, indicating the effectiveness of pasteurization at inactivating the virus. Of importance to pediatricians and others pediatric clinicians, limited sampling of retail powdered infant formula and powdered milk products marketed as toddler formula revealed no viral fragments or viable virus.

The million-dollar question is whether HPAI A(H5N1) could start a new pandemic. To date, the virus has not acquired the mutations that would make it easily transmissible from person to person. If that changes and the virus does start spreading more widely, candidate vaccines that could protect against HPAI A(H5N1) have been developed and are part of the national stockpile. Let’s hope we don’t need them.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and the physician lead for Red Book Online. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.

Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.

Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Mixed Results

Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.

To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.

While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.

Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.

The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.

No Link Found

After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)

Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.

The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.

After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)

Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.

“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.

There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 90% of adults were at risk of developing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome between 2011 and 2020, according to new research published in JAMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the American Heart Association defined  to acknowledge how heart and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity interact and are increasingly co-occurring conditions.
• Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020.
• More than 10,000 adults over age 20 years were included; all of them received a physical and fasting laboratory measurements and self-reported their cardiovascular disease (CVD) status.
• Researchers created categories for risk, ranging from 0 (no risk factors) to 4, using factors such as kidney disease, obesity, and hypertension.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 90% of participants met the criteria for having a stage of the CKM syndrome, with rates remaining steady throughout the study period.Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.
• Almost half of people met the criteria for stage 2 (having metabolic risk factors like hypertension or moderate- to high-risk chronic kidney disease).
   
• 14.6% met the criteria for advanced stage 3 (very high-risk chronic kidney disease or a high risk for 10-year CVD) and stage 4 CKM syndrome (established CVD) combined.
   
• Men, adults over age 65 years, and Black individuals were at a greater risk for advanced stages of the CKM syndrome.

IN PRACTICE:

“Equitable health care approaches prioritizing CKM health are urgently needed,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, cardiologist and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

LIMITATIONS: 

Established CVD statuses were self-reported. Some data that would indicate advanced CKM stages were not available (eg, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and coronary angiography), which may have led to an underestimation of rates.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vaduganathan received grants from and was an adviser and committee trial member for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. The authors reported no other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.