CHEST Physician

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The early cancellation of a trial in southern India suggests that the use of antenatal steroids to prevent respiratory complications after late-preterm birth — a recommended practice in the United States — may not be effective in the developing world.

As reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers led by Hilda Yenuberi, MD, of Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India, stopped the randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled CLAP (Corticosteroids in Late Pregnancy) study at 70% enrollment. An interim analysis found no benefit from prescribing betamethasone vs placebo to women at risk of late-preterm delivery between 34 and 36 and 6/7 weeks of gestation (primary outcome of respiratory distress: 4.9% vs 4.8%, respectively, relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57-1.84; number needed to treat = 786).

“These findings may suggest differing efficacy of antenatal corticosteroids in developing countries compared with developed countries ... that should be considered when late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids are administered,” the researchers wrote.

The use of steroids in patients at risk of delivery before 34 weeks is widely accepted as a way to prevent neonatal respiratory distress, a common and potentially deadly condition in premature infants whose lungs are not fully developed. However, there’s debate over steroid treatment in women who are expected to deliver later than 34 weeks but still preterm.

As the study notes, “the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a single course of betamethasone for pregnant individuals at risk of delivering between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation on the basis of the ALPS (Antenatal Late Preterm Steroid) trial.”

But other randomized trials have reached different conclusions, and steroids are not without risks. Studies have linked prenatal steroids to neurosensory disorders in babies, meaning they’re more likely to need hearing aids and eyeglasses, said Kellie Murphy, MD, MSc, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in an interview. Dr. Murphy, who was not involved in the new trial, added that there are links between steroids and greater likelihood of poorer performance in school,

For the new study, conducted from 2020 to 2022 at Christian Medical College and Hospital in Vellore, India, researchers randomly assigned 423 patients to betamethasone (410 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.8 years) and 424 to placebo (415 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.2 years).

The average age of participants was 26.8 years. All were between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation and expected to give birth within the next week. A quarter of participants delivered at term, which the authors wrote “may have influenced the primary outcome.” The total number of neonates was 883, including 58 twin pregnancies.

There was no significant difference in respiratory distress between groups, “defined as need for oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure or mechanical ventilation for at least 2 hours in the first 72 hours of life.” There also were no significant differences in maternal outcomes such as chorioamnionitis or length of hospitalization or neonatal secondary outcomes such as transient tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, hyperbilirubinemia, stillbirth, and early neonatal death.

Serious adverse events occurred in four neonates but none were linked to the intervention.

The study doesn’t discuss cost, but a 2019 report suggests that use of betamethasone to prevent neonatal respiratory distress is cost-effective.

“Our findings are contradictory to those of a systematic review, the major contributor of which was the ALPS trial,” the authors of the new study reported. “The primary outcome of the ALPS trial, the composite of neonatal treatment in the first 72 hours, was significantly less in the group who received betamethasone (11.6%), compared with the placebo group (14.4%; relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97).”

The study authors, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, noted that their trial included twin pregnancies and patients with gestational diabetes; the ALPS trial did not.

Perinatologist Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS, chair and professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California,San Diego, and principal investigator of the ALPS study, said in an interview that the inclusion of twins in the new trial is “a fundamental flaw.”

“Because antenatal corticosteroids have not been shown to be useful in twins at any gestational age, it is not surprising that including twins likely moved the findings to the null in this study,” she said. “Twins were purposefully excluded from the ALPS trial for this reason.”

According to the new study, “the primary outcome among singleton neonates occurred in 4.8% (18/374) who received betamethasone and 5.1% (20/393) who received placebo (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.51-1.75)

What should clinicians take from the study findings? In an accompanying commentary, Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, and Syed Asad Ali, MBBS, MPH, of Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan, wrote that, “in settings similar to the US-based ALPS trial, the practice of administering a course of late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids should be continued, as espoused by our professional organizations.”

However, the new study suggests that “research in high-resource environments may not be generalizable to low-resource settings,” they write.

Neonatologist Elizabeth Asztalos, MD, MSc, an associate scientist with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, Canada, said in an interview that she doesn’t worry about pregnant mothers not getting steroids later than 34 weeks. “We have tools in our armamentarium in the NICU setting to help babies if they need it,” said Dr. Asztalos, who didn’t take part in the new trial. “We can put them on CPAP if they have wet lung. If they have an element of respiratory distress, we can give them surfactants. These bigger babies have more ability to recover from all this compared to a baby who was born at 24, 25, 26 weeks.”

For her part, the University of Toronto’s Dr. Murphy said decision-making about late-preterm steroids is complicated. “You don’t want to miss the opportunity to give to provide benefits for the patients” via steroids, she said. “But on the flip side, it’s a double-edged sword. It’s not easy. It’s not straightforward.”

In the big picture, she said, “people need to be really clear why they’re giving an intervention and what they hope to achieve.”

Christian Medical College supported the study. The authors, Dr. Murphy, Dr. Asztalos, and commentary co-author Dr. Ali have no disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman discloses being principal investigator of the ALPS trial. Commentary co-author Dr. Wylie serves on the ultrasound quality assurance committee of a trial discussed in the commentary.

The early cancellation of a trial in southern India suggests that the use of antenatal steroids to prevent respiratory complications after late-preterm birth — a recommended practice in the United States — may not be effective in the developing world.

As reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers led by Hilda Yenuberi, MD, of Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India, stopped the randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled CLAP (Corticosteroids in Late Pregnancy) study at 70% enrollment. An interim analysis found no benefit from prescribing betamethasone vs placebo to women at risk of late-preterm delivery between 34 and 36 and 6/7 weeks of gestation (primary outcome of respiratory distress: 4.9% vs 4.8%, respectively, relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57-1.84; number needed to treat = 786).

“These findings may suggest differing efficacy of antenatal corticosteroids in developing countries compared with developed countries ... that should be considered when late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids are administered,” the researchers wrote.

The use of steroids in patients at risk of delivery before 34 weeks is widely accepted as a way to prevent neonatal respiratory distress, a common and potentially deadly condition in premature infants whose lungs are not fully developed. However, there’s debate over steroid treatment in women who are expected to deliver later than 34 weeks but still preterm.

As the study notes, “the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a single course of betamethasone for pregnant individuals at risk of delivering between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation on the basis of the ALPS (Antenatal Late Preterm Steroid) trial.”

But other randomized trials have reached different conclusions, and steroids are not without risks. Studies have linked prenatal steroids to neurosensory disorders in babies, meaning they’re more likely to need hearing aids and eyeglasses, said Kellie Murphy, MD, MSc, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in an interview. Dr. Murphy, who was not involved in the new trial, added that there are links between steroids and greater likelihood of poorer performance in school,

For the new study, conducted from 2020 to 2022 at Christian Medical College and Hospital in Vellore, India, researchers randomly assigned 423 patients to betamethasone (410 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.8 years) and 424 to placebo (415 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.2 years).

The average age of participants was 26.8 years. All were between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation and expected to give birth within the next week. A quarter of participants delivered at term, which the authors wrote “may have influenced the primary outcome.” The total number of neonates was 883, including 58 twin pregnancies.

There was no significant difference in respiratory distress between groups, “defined as need for oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure or mechanical ventilation for at least 2 hours in the first 72 hours of life.” There also were no significant differences in maternal outcomes such as chorioamnionitis or length of hospitalization or neonatal secondary outcomes such as transient tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, hyperbilirubinemia, stillbirth, and early neonatal death.

Serious adverse events occurred in four neonates but none were linked to the intervention.

The study doesn’t discuss cost, but a 2019 report suggests that use of betamethasone to prevent neonatal respiratory distress is cost-effective.

“Our findings are contradictory to those of a systematic review, the major contributor of which was the ALPS trial,” the authors of the new study reported. “The primary outcome of the ALPS trial, the composite of neonatal treatment in the first 72 hours, was significantly less in the group who received betamethasone (11.6%), compared with the placebo group (14.4%; relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97).”

The study authors, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, noted that their trial included twin pregnancies and patients with gestational diabetes; the ALPS trial did not.

Perinatologist Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS, chair and professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California,San Diego, and principal investigator of the ALPS study, said in an interview that the inclusion of twins in the new trial is “a fundamental flaw.”

“Because antenatal corticosteroids have not been shown to be useful in twins at any gestational age, it is not surprising that including twins likely moved the findings to the null in this study,” she said. “Twins were purposefully excluded from the ALPS trial for this reason.”

According to the new study, “the primary outcome among singleton neonates occurred in 4.8% (18/374) who received betamethasone and 5.1% (20/393) who received placebo (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.51-1.75)

What should clinicians take from the study findings? In an accompanying commentary, Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, and Syed Asad Ali, MBBS, MPH, of Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan, wrote that, “in settings similar to the US-based ALPS trial, the practice of administering a course of late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids should be continued, as espoused by our professional organizations.”

However, the new study suggests that “research in high-resource environments may not be generalizable to low-resource settings,” they write.

Neonatologist Elizabeth Asztalos, MD, MSc, an associate scientist with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, Canada, said in an interview that she doesn’t worry about pregnant mothers not getting steroids later than 34 weeks. “We have tools in our armamentarium in the NICU setting to help babies if they need it,” said Dr. Asztalos, who didn’t take part in the new trial. “We can put them on CPAP if they have wet lung. If they have an element of respiratory distress, we can give them surfactants. These bigger babies have more ability to recover from all this compared to a baby who was born at 24, 25, 26 weeks.”

For her part, the University of Toronto’s Dr. Murphy said decision-making about late-preterm steroids is complicated. “You don’t want to miss the opportunity to give to provide benefits for the patients” via steroids, she said. “But on the flip side, it’s a double-edged sword. It’s not easy. It’s not straightforward.”

In the big picture, she said, “people need to be really clear why they’re giving an intervention and what they hope to achieve.”

Christian Medical College supported the study. The authors, Dr. Murphy, Dr. Asztalos, and commentary co-author Dr. Ali have no disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman discloses being principal investigator of the ALPS trial. Commentary co-author Dr. Wylie serves on the ultrasound quality assurance committee of a trial discussed in the commentary.

The early cancellation of a trial in southern India suggests that the use of antenatal steroids to prevent respiratory complications after late-preterm birth — a recommended practice in the United States — may not be effective in the developing world.

As reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers led by Hilda Yenuberi, MD, of Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India, stopped the randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled CLAP (Corticosteroids in Late Pregnancy) study at 70% enrollment. An interim analysis found no benefit from prescribing betamethasone vs placebo to women at risk of late-preterm delivery between 34 and 36 and 6/7 weeks of gestation (primary outcome of respiratory distress: 4.9% vs 4.8%, respectively, relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57-1.84; number needed to treat = 786).

“These findings may suggest differing efficacy of antenatal corticosteroids in developing countries compared with developed countries ... that should be considered when late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids are administered,” the researchers wrote.

The use of steroids in patients at risk of delivery before 34 weeks is widely accepted as a way to prevent neonatal respiratory distress, a common and potentially deadly condition in premature infants whose lungs are not fully developed. However, there’s debate over steroid treatment in women who are expected to deliver later than 34 weeks but still preterm.

As the study notes, “the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a single course of betamethasone for pregnant individuals at risk of delivering between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation on the basis of the ALPS (Antenatal Late Preterm Steroid) trial.”

But other randomized trials have reached different conclusions, and steroids are not without risks. Studies have linked prenatal steroids to neurosensory disorders in babies, meaning they’re more likely to need hearing aids and eyeglasses, said Kellie Murphy, MD, MSc, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in an interview. Dr. Murphy, who was not involved in the new trial, added that there are links between steroids and greater likelihood of poorer performance in school,

For the new study, conducted from 2020 to 2022 at Christian Medical College and Hospital in Vellore, India, researchers randomly assigned 423 patients to betamethasone (410 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.8 years) and 424 to placebo (415 in the interim analysis; average age, 26.2 years).

The average age of participants was 26.8 years. All were between 34 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation and expected to give birth within the next week. A quarter of participants delivered at term, which the authors wrote “may have influenced the primary outcome.” The total number of neonates was 883, including 58 twin pregnancies.

There was no significant difference in respiratory distress between groups, “defined as need for oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure or mechanical ventilation for at least 2 hours in the first 72 hours of life.” There also were no significant differences in maternal outcomes such as chorioamnionitis or length of hospitalization or neonatal secondary outcomes such as transient tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, hyperbilirubinemia, stillbirth, and early neonatal death.

Serious adverse events occurred in four neonates but none were linked to the intervention.

The study doesn’t discuss cost, but a 2019 report suggests that use of betamethasone to prevent neonatal respiratory distress is cost-effective.

“Our findings are contradictory to those of a systematic review, the major contributor of which was the ALPS trial,” the authors of the new study reported. “The primary outcome of the ALPS trial, the composite of neonatal treatment in the first 72 hours, was significantly less in the group who received betamethasone (11.6%), compared with the placebo group (14.4%; relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97).”

The study authors, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, noted that their trial included twin pregnancies and patients with gestational diabetes; the ALPS trial did not.

Perinatologist Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS, chair and professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California,San Diego, and principal investigator of the ALPS study, said in an interview that the inclusion of twins in the new trial is “a fundamental flaw.”

“Because antenatal corticosteroids have not been shown to be useful in twins at any gestational age, it is not surprising that including twins likely moved the findings to the null in this study,” she said. “Twins were purposefully excluded from the ALPS trial for this reason.”

According to the new study, “the primary outcome among singleton neonates occurred in 4.8% (18/374) who received betamethasone and 5.1% (20/393) who received placebo (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.51-1.75)

What should clinicians take from the study findings? In an accompanying commentary, Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, and Syed Asad Ali, MBBS, MPH, of Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan, wrote that, “in settings similar to the US-based ALPS trial, the practice of administering a course of late-preterm antenatal corticosteroids should be continued, as espoused by our professional organizations.”

However, the new study suggests that “research in high-resource environments may not be generalizable to low-resource settings,” they write.

Neonatologist Elizabeth Asztalos, MD, MSc, an associate scientist with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, Canada, said in an interview that she doesn’t worry about pregnant mothers not getting steroids later than 34 weeks. “We have tools in our armamentarium in the NICU setting to help babies if they need it,” said Dr. Asztalos, who didn’t take part in the new trial. “We can put them on CPAP if they have wet lung. If they have an element of respiratory distress, we can give them surfactants. These bigger babies have more ability to recover from all this compared to a baby who was born at 24, 25, 26 weeks.”

For her part, the University of Toronto’s Dr. Murphy said decision-making about late-preterm steroids is complicated. “You don’t want to miss the opportunity to give to provide benefits for the patients” via steroids, she said. “But on the flip side, it’s a double-edged sword. It’s not easy. It’s not straightforward.”

In the big picture, she said, “people need to be really clear why they’re giving an intervention and what they hope to achieve.”

Christian Medical College supported the study. The authors, Dr. Murphy, Dr. Asztalos, and commentary co-author Dr. Ali have no disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman discloses being principal investigator of the ALPS trial. Commentary co-author Dr. Wylie serves on the ultrasound quality assurance committee of a trial discussed in the commentary.

Antibiotics had no measurable effect on the severity or duration of coughs due to acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI, or acute bronchitis), a large prospective study found.

In fact, those receiving an antibiotic in the primary- and urgent-care setting had a small but significant increase in overall length of illness (17.5 vs 15.9 days; P = .05) — largely because patients with longer illness before the index visit were more likely to receive these drugs. The study adds further support for reducing the prescription of antibiotics for LRTIs.

“Importantly, the pathogen data demonstrated that the length of time until illness resolution for those with bacterial infection was the same as for those not receiving an antibiotic versus those receiving one (17.3 vs 17.4 days),” researchers led by Daniel J. Merenstein, MD, a professor and director of research programs, family medicine, at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, wrote in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08758-y).

Dr. Merenstein

Risks

Overuse of antibiotics can result in dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, and rash, along with a roughly 4% chance of serious adverse effects including anaphylaxis; Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious skin and mucous membrane disorder; and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea.

An estimated half of all antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory conditions are unnecessary. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, antibiotics were prescribed about 70% of the time for a diagnosis of uncomplicated cough and LRTI. The viral pandemic did not change this practice according to a meta-analysis of 130 studies showing that 78% of COVID-19 patients were prescribed an antibiotic.
 

The study

The study looked at a cohort of 718 patients, with a mean age of 38.9 years, 65.3% female, of whom 207 received an antibiotic and 511 did not. Of those with baseline data, 29% had an antibiotic prescribed at baseline, the most common (in 85%) being amoxicillin-clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin. Antibiotics had no effect on the duration or overall severity of cough in viral, bacterial, or mixed infections. Receipt of an antibiotic did, however, reduce the likelihood of a follow-up visit: 14.1% vs 8.2% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84) — perhaps because it removed the motivation for seeking another consultation. Antibiotic recipients were more likely to receive a systemic corticosteroid (31.9% vs 4.5%, P <.001) and were also more likely to receive an albuterol inhaler (22.7% vs 7.6%, P <.001).

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and chief of internal medicine and geriatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that in the vast majority of LRTIs — usually acute bronchitis — antibiotics do not speed the healing process. “Forty years of research show that antibiotics do not make acute bronchitis go away any faster,” Dr. Linder, who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “There’s even growing evidence that a lot of pneumonia is viral as well, and 10 or 20 years from now we may often not be giving antibiotics for pneumonia because we’ll be able to see better if it’s caused by a virus.”

Northwestern Medicine

Antibiotics had no measurable effect on the severity or duration of coughs due to acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI, or acute bronchitis), a large prospective study found.

In fact, those receiving an antibiotic in the primary- and urgent-care setting had a small but significant increase in overall length of illness (17.5 vs 15.9 days; P = .05) — largely because patients with longer illness before the index visit were more likely to receive these drugs. The study adds further support for reducing the prescription of antibiotics for LRTIs.

“Importantly, the pathogen data demonstrated that the length of time until illness resolution for those with bacterial infection was the same as for those not receiving an antibiotic versus those receiving one (17.3 vs 17.4 days),” researchers led by Daniel J. Merenstein, MD, a professor and director of research programs, family medicine, at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, wrote in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08758-y).

Dr. Merenstein

Risks

Overuse of antibiotics can result in dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, and rash, along with a roughly 4% chance of serious adverse effects including anaphylaxis; Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious skin and mucous membrane disorder; and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea.

An estimated half of all antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory conditions are unnecessary. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, antibiotics were prescribed about 70% of the time for a diagnosis of uncomplicated cough and LRTI. The viral pandemic did not change this practice according to a meta-analysis of 130 studies showing that 78% of COVID-19 patients were prescribed an antibiotic.
 

The study

The study looked at a cohort of 718 patients, with a mean age of 38.9 years, 65.3% female, of whom 207 received an antibiotic and 511 did not. Of those with baseline data, 29% had an antibiotic prescribed at baseline, the most common (in 85%) being amoxicillin-clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin. Antibiotics had no effect on the duration or overall severity of cough in viral, bacterial, or mixed infections. Receipt of an antibiotic did, however, reduce the likelihood of a follow-up visit: 14.1% vs 8.2% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84) — perhaps because it removed the motivation for seeking another consultation. Antibiotic recipients were more likely to receive a systemic corticosteroid (31.9% vs 4.5%, P <.001) and were also more likely to receive an albuterol inhaler (22.7% vs 7.6%, P <.001).

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and chief of internal medicine and geriatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that in the vast majority of LRTIs — usually acute bronchitis — antibiotics do not speed the healing process. “Forty years of research show that antibiotics do not make acute bronchitis go away any faster,” Dr. Linder, who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “There’s even growing evidence that a lot of pneumonia is viral as well, and 10 or 20 years from now we may often not be giving antibiotics for pneumonia because we’ll be able to see better if it’s caused by a virus.”

Northwestern Medicine

Antibiotics had no measurable effect on the severity or duration of coughs due to acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI, or acute bronchitis), a large prospective study found.

In fact, those receiving an antibiotic in the primary- and urgent-care setting had a small but significant increase in overall length of illness (17.5 vs 15.9 days; P = .05) — largely because patients with longer illness before the index visit were more likely to receive these drugs. The study adds further support for reducing the prescription of antibiotics for LRTIs.

“Importantly, the pathogen data demonstrated that the length of time until illness resolution for those with bacterial infection was the same as for those not receiving an antibiotic versus those receiving one (17.3 vs 17.4 days),” researchers led by Daniel J. Merenstein, MD, a professor and director of research programs, family medicine, at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, wrote in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08758-y).

Dr. Merenstein

Risks

Overuse of antibiotics can result in dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, and rash, along with a roughly 4% chance of serious adverse effects including anaphylaxis; Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious skin and mucous membrane disorder; and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea.

An estimated half of all antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory conditions are unnecessary. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, antibiotics were prescribed about 70% of the time for a diagnosis of uncomplicated cough and LRTI. The viral pandemic did not change this practice according to a meta-analysis of 130 studies showing that 78% of COVID-19 patients were prescribed an antibiotic.
 

The study

The study looked at a cohort of 718 patients, with a mean age of 38.9 years, 65.3% female, of whom 207 received an antibiotic and 511 did not. Of those with baseline data, 29% had an antibiotic prescribed at baseline, the most common (in 85%) being amoxicillin-clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin. Antibiotics had no effect on the duration or overall severity of cough in viral, bacterial, or mixed infections. Receipt of an antibiotic did, however, reduce the likelihood of a follow-up visit: 14.1% vs 8.2% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84) — perhaps because it removed the motivation for seeking another consultation. Antibiotic recipients were more likely to receive a systemic corticosteroid (31.9% vs 4.5%, P <.001) and were also more likely to receive an albuterol inhaler (22.7% vs 7.6%, P <.001).

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and chief of internal medicine and geriatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that in the vast majority of LRTIs — usually acute bronchitis — antibiotics do not speed the healing process. “Forty years of research show that antibiotics do not make acute bronchitis go away any faster,” Dr. Linder, who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “There’s even growing evidence that a lot of pneumonia is viral as well, and 10 or 20 years from now we may often not be giving antibiotics for pneumonia because we’ll be able to see better if it’s caused by a virus.”

Northwestern Medicine

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

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.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

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.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

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.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.