CHEST Physician

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently published its position statement reaffirming its support of utilizing permanent Standard Time (ST) as opposed to Daylight Saving Time (DST).¹ DST usually occurs on the second Sunday in March when we “spring forward” by advancing the clock by 1 hour. The analogous “fall back” on the first Sunday in November refers to reversion back to the original ST, which is more synchronous with the sun’s natural pattern of rise and fall.

The earliest argument for DST practice dates back to the 1700s when Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical piece in the Journal of Paris suggesting that advancing the clock to rise earlier in the summer would lead to economization in candle usage and save significant resources for Parisians. The modern version of this assertion infers that increased daylight in the evening will lead to increased consumer activity and work productivity with consequent economic benefits. Interestingly, the adoption of DST has demonstrated the opposite—a reduction in work productivity and economic losses.² Another often-cited claim is that increased daylight in the evening could lead to fewer motor vehicle accidents. However, the reality is that DST is associated with more frequent car accidents in the morning.

The greatest drawback of DST is that, initially, it leads to sleep deprivation and chronically drives asynchronization between the circadian clock and the social clock. Humans synchronize their internal clock based on several factors, including light, temperature, feeding, and social habits. However, light is the strongest exogenous factor that regulates the internal clock. Light inhibits secretion of melatonin, an endogenous hormone that promotes sleep onset. While there is some individual variation in circadian patterns, exposure to bright light in the morning leads to increased physical, mental, and goal-directed activity.

Conversely, darkness or reduced light exposure in the evening hours promotes decreased activity and sleep onset via melatonin release. DST disrupts this natural process by promoting increased light exposure in the evening. This desynchronizes solar light from our internal clocks, causing a relative phase delay. Acutely, patients experience a form of imposed social jet lag. They lose an hour of sleep due to diminished sleep opportunity, as work and social obligations are typically not altered to allow for a later awakening. With recurrent delays, this lends to a pattern of chronic sleep deprivation which has significant health consequences.

Losing an hour of sleep opportunity as the clock advances in spring has dire consequences. The transition to DST is associated with increased cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and admissions for acute atrial fibrillation.^{3 4 5} A large body of work has shown that acute reduction of sleep is associated with higher sympathetic tone, compromised immunity, and increased inflammation. Further, cognitive consequences can ensue in the form of altered situational awareness, increased risky behavior, and worse reaction time—which manifest as increased motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities.⁶ Emergency room visits and bounce-back admissions, medical errors and injuries, and missed appointments increase following the switch to DST.⁷ Psychiatric outcomes, including deaths due to suicide and overdose, are worse with the spring transition.⁸

Is the problem with DST merely limited to springtime, when we lose an hour of sleep? Not quite. During the “fall back” period, despite theoretically gaining an hour of sleep opportunity, people exhibit evidence of sleep disruption, psychiatric issues, traffic accidents, and inflammatory bowel disease exacerbations. These consequences likely stem from a discordance between circadian and social time, which leads to an earlier awakening based on circadian physiology as opposed to the clock time.

The acute impact of changing our sleep patterns during transitions in clock time may be appreciated more readily, but the damage is much more insidious. Chronic exposure to light in the late evening creates a state of enhanced arousal when the body should be winding down. The chronic incongruency between clock and solar time leads to dyssynchrony in our usual functions, such as food intake, social and physical activity, and basal temperature. Consequently, there is an impetus to fall asleep later. This leads to an accumulation of sleep debt and its associated negative consequences in the general, already chronically sleep-deprived population. This is especially impactful to adolescents and young adults who tend to have a delay in their sleep and wake patterns and, yet, are socially bound to early morning awakenings for school or work.

The scientific evidence behind the health risk and benefit profile of DST and ST is incontrovertible and in favor of ST. The hallmark of appropriate sleep habits involves consistency and appropriate duration. Changing timing forward or backward increases the likelihood of an alteration of the baseline established sleep and circadian consistency.

Unfortunately, despite multiple polls demonstrating the populace’s dislike of DST, repeat attempts to codify DST and negate ST persist. The latest initiative, the Sunshine Protection Act, which promised permanent DST, was passed by the US Senate but was thankfully foiled by Congress in 2022. The act of setting a time is not one that should be taken lightly or in isolation because there are significant, long-lasting health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of this decision. Practically, this entails a concerted effort from all major economies since consistency is essential for trade and geopolitical relations. China, Japan, and India don’t practice DST. The European Parliament voted successfully to abolish DST in the European Union in 2019 with a plan to implement ST in 2021. Implementation has yet to be successful due to interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the current economic and political climate in Europe. Political or theoretical political victories should not supersede the health and safety of an elected official’s constituents. As a medical community, we should continue to use our collective voice to encourage our representatives to vote in ways that positively affect our patients’ health outcomes.

References:

1. Rishi MA, et al. JCSM. 2024;20(1):121.

2. Gibson M, et al. Rev Econ Stat. 2018;100(5):783.

3. Jansky I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1966.

4. Sipilia J, et al. Sleep Med. 2016;27-28:20.

5. Chudow JJ, et al. Sleep Med. 2020;69:155.

6. Fritz J, et al. Curr Biol. 2020;30(4):729.

7. Ferrazzi E, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2018;33(5):555-564.

8. Berk M, et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2008;6(1):22.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently published its position statement reaffirming its support of utilizing permanent Standard Time (ST) as opposed to Daylight Saving Time (DST).¹ DST usually occurs on the second Sunday in March when we “spring forward” by advancing the clock by 1 hour. The analogous “fall back” on the first Sunday in November refers to reversion back to the original ST, which is more synchronous with the sun’s natural pattern of rise and fall.

The earliest argument for DST practice dates back to the 1700s when Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical piece in the Journal of Paris suggesting that advancing the clock to rise earlier in the summer would lead to economization in candle usage and save significant resources for Parisians. The modern version of this assertion infers that increased daylight in the evening will lead to increased consumer activity and work productivity with consequent economic benefits. Interestingly, the adoption of DST has demonstrated the opposite—a reduction in work productivity and economic losses.² Another often-cited claim is that increased daylight in the evening could lead to fewer motor vehicle accidents. However, the reality is that DST is associated with more frequent car accidents in the morning.

The greatest drawback of DST is that, initially, it leads to sleep deprivation and chronically drives asynchronization between the circadian clock and the social clock. Humans synchronize their internal clock based on several factors, including light, temperature, feeding, and social habits. However, light is the strongest exogenous factor that regulates the internal clock. Light inhibits secretion of melatonin, an endogenous hormone that promotes sleep onset. While there is some individual variation in circadian patterns, exposure to bright light in the morning leads to increased physical, mental, and goal-directed activity.

Conversely, darkness or reduced light exposure in the evening hours promotes decreased activity and sleep onset via melatonin release. DST disrupts this natural process by promoting increased light exposure in the evening. This desynchronizes solar light from our internal clocks, causing a relative phase delay. Acutely, patients experience a form of imposed social jet lag. They lose an hour of sleep due to diminished sleep opportunity, as work and social obligations are typically not altered to allow for a later awakening. With recurrent delays, this lends to a pattern of chronic sleep deprivation which has significant health consequences.

Losing an hour of sleep opportunity as the clock advances in spring has dire consequences. The transition to DST is associated with increased cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and admissions for acute atrial fibrillation.^{3 4 5} A large body of work has shown that acute reduction of sleep is associated with higher sympathetic tone, compromised immunity, and increased inflammation. Further, cognitive consequences can ensue in the form of altered situational awareness, increased risky behavior, and worse reaction time—which manifest as increased motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities.⁶ Emergency room visits and bounce-back admissions, medical errors and injuries, and missed appointments increase following the switch to DST.⁷ Psychiatric outcomes, including deaths due to suicide and overdose, are worse with the spring transition.⁸

Is the problem with DST merely limited to springtime, when we lose an hour of sleep? Not quite. During the “fall back” period, despite theoretically gaining an hour of sleep opportunity, people exhibit evidence of sleep disruption, psychiatric issues, traffic accidents, and inflammatory bowel disease exacerbations. These consequences likely stem from a discordance between circadian and social time, which leads to an earlier awakening based on circadian physiology as opposed to the clock time.

The acute impact of changing our sleep patterns during transitions in clock time may be appreciated more readily, but the damage is much more insidious. Chronic exposure to light in the late evening creates a state of enhanced arousal when the body should be winding down. The chronic incongruency between clock and solar time leads to dyssynchrony in our usual functions, such as food intake, social and physical activity, and basal temperature. Consequently, there is an impetus to fall asleep later. This leads to an accumulation of sleep debt and its associated negative consequences in the general, already chronically sleep-deprived population. This is especially impactful to adolescents and young adults who tend to have a delay in their sleep and wake patterns and, yet, are socially bound to early morning awakenings for school or work.

The scientific evidence behind the health risk and benefit profile of DST and ST is incontrovertible and in favor of ST. The hallmark of appropriate sleep habits involves consistency and appropriate duration. Changing timing forward or backward increases the likelihood of an alteration of the baseline established sleep and circadian consistency.

Unfortunately, despite multiple polls demonstrating the populace’s dislike of DST, repeat attempts to codify DST and negate ST persist. The latest initiative, the Sunshine Protection Act, which promised permanent DST, was passed by the US Senate but was thankfully foiled by Congress in 2022. The act of setting a time is not one that should be taken lightly or in isolation because there are significant, long-lasting health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of this decision. Practically, this entails a concerted effort from all major economies since consistency is essential for trade and geopolitical relations. China, Japan, and India don’t practice DST. The European Parliament voted successfully to abolish DST in the European Union in 2019 with a plan to implement ST in 2021. Implementation has yet to be successful due to interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the current economic and political climate in Europe. Political or theoretical political victories should not supersede the health and safety of an elected official’s constituents. As a medical community, we should continue to use our collective voice to encourage our representatives to vote in ways that positively affect our patients’ health outcomes.

References:

1. Rishi MA, et al. JCSM. 2024;20(1):121.

2. Gibson M, et al. Rev Econ Stat. 2018;100(5):783.

3. Jansky I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1966.

4. Sipilia J, et al. Sleep Med. 2016;27-28:20.

5. Chudow JJ, et al. Sleep Med. 2020;69:155.

6. Fritz J, et al. Curr Biol. 2020;30(4):729.

7. Ferrazzi E, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2018;33(5):555-564.

8. Berk M, et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2008;6(1):22.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently published its position statement reaffirming its support of utilizing permanent Standard Time (ST) as opposed to Daylight Saving Time (DST).¹ DST usually occurs on the second Sunday in March when we “spring forward” by advancing the clock by 1 hour. The analogous “fall back” on the first Sunday in November refers to reversion back to the original ST, which is more synchronous with the sun’s natural pattern of rise and fall.

The earliest argument for DST practice dates back to the 1700s when Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical piece in the Journal of Paris suggesting that advancing the clock to rise earlier in the summer would lead to economization in candle usage and save significant resources for Parisians. The modern version of this assertion infers that increased daylight in the evening will lead to increased consumer activity and work productivity with consequent economic benefits. Interestingly, the adoption of DST has demonstrated the opposite—a reduction in work productivity and economic losses.² Another often-cited claim is that increased daylight in the evening could lead to fewer motor vehicle accidents. However, the reality is that DST is associated with more frequent car accidents in the morning.

The greatest drawback of DST is that, initially, it leads to sleep deprivation and chronically drives asynchronization between the circadian clock and the social clock. Humans synchronize their internal clock based on several factors, including light, temperature, feeding, and social habits. However, light is the strongest exogenous factor that regulates the internal clock. Light inhibits secretion of melatonin, an endogenous hormone that promotes sleep onset. While there is some individual variation in circadian patterns, exposure to bright light in the morning leads to increased physical, mental, and goal-directed activity.

Conversely, darkness or reduced light exposure in the evening hours promotes decreased activity and sleep onset via melatonin release. DST disrupts this natural process by promoting increased light exposure in the evening. This desynchronizes solar light from our internal clocks, causing a relative phase delay. Acutely, patients experience a form of imposed social jet lag. They lose an hour of sleep due to diminished sleep opportunity, as work and social obligations are typically not altered to allow for a later awakening. With recurrent delays, this lends to a pattern of chronic sleep deprivation which has significant health consequences.

Losing an hour of sleep opportunity as the clock advances in spring has dire consequences. The transition to DST is associated with increased cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and admissions for acute atrial fibrillation.^{3 4 5} A large body of work has shown that acute reduction of sleep is associated with higher sympathetic tone, compromised immunity, and increased inflammation. Further, cognitive consequences can ensue in the form of altered situational awareness, increased risky behavior, and worse reaction time—which manifest as increased motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities.⁶ Emergency room visits and bounce-back admissions, medical errors and injuries, and missed appointments increase following the switch to DST.⁷ Psychiatric outcomes, including deaths due to suicide and overdose, are worse with the spring transition.⁸

Is the problem with DST merely limited to springtime, when we lose an hour of sleep? Not quite. During the “fall back” period, despite theoretically gaining an hour of sleep opportunity, people exhibit evidence of sleep disruption, psychiatric issues, traffic accidents, and inflammatory bowel disease exacerbations. These consequences likely stem from a discordance between circadian and social time, which leads to an earlier awakening based on circadian physiology as opposed to the clock time.

The acute impact of changing our sleep patterns during transitions in clock time may be appreciated more readily, but the damage is much more insidious. Chronic exposure to light in the late evening creates a state of enhanced arousal when the body should be winding down. The chronic incongruency between clock and solar time leads to dyssynchrony in our usual functions, such as food intake, social and physical activity, and basal temperature. Consequently, there is an impetus to fall asleep later. This leads to an accumulation of sleep debt and its associated negative consequences in the general, already chronically sleep-deprived population. This is especially impactful to adolescents and young adults who tend to have a delay in their sleep and wake patterns and, yet, are socially bound to early morning awakenings for school or work.

The scientific evidence behind the health risk and benefit profile of DST and ST is incontrovertible and in favor of ST. The hallmark of appropriate sleep habits involves consistency and appropriate duration. Changing timing forward or backward increases the likelihood of an alteration of the baseline established sleep and circadian consistency.

Unfortunately, despite multiple polls demonstrating the populace’s dislike of DST, repeat attempts to codify DST and negate ST persist. The latest initiative, the Sunshine Protection Act, which promised permanent DST, was passed by the US Senate but was thankfully foiled by Congress in 2022. The act of setting a time is not one that should be taken lightly or in isolation because there are significant, long-lasting health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of this decision. Practically, this entails a concerted effort from all major economies since consistency is essential for trade and geopolitical relations. China, Japan, and India don’t practice DST. The European Parliament voted successfully to abolish DST in the European Union in 2019 with a plan to implement ST in 2021. Implementation has yet to be successful due to interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the current economic and political climate in Europe. Political or theoretical political victories should not supersede the health and safety of an elected official’s constituents. As a medical community, we should continue to use our collective voice to encourage our representatives to vote in ways that positively affect our patients’ health outcomes.

References:

1. Rishi MA, et al. JCSM. 2024;20(1):121.

2. Gibson M, et al. Rev Econ Stat. 2018;100(5):783.

3. Jansky I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1966.

4. Sipilia J, et al. Sleep Med. 2016;27-28:20.

5. Chudow JJ, et al. Sleep Med. 2020;69:155.

6. Fritz J, et al. Curr Biol. 2020;30(4):729.

7. Ferrazzi E, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2018;33(5):555-564.

8. Berk M, et al. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2008;6(1):22.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created 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 new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created 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 new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created 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.

Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.

After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”

Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.

What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.

“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.

Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.

Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key

There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.

Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.

Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.

How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine

The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).

It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.

Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.

Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.

Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.

Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities

Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.

In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.

However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.

For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.

The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”

Where It All Leads

The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.

“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.

This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.

“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.

“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.

After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”

Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.

What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.

“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.

Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.

Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key

There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.

Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.

Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.

How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine

The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).

It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.

Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.

Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.

Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.

Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities

Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.

In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.

However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.

For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.

The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”

Where It All Leads

The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.

“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.

This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.

“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.

“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.

After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”

Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.

What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.

“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.

Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.

Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key

There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.

Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.

Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.

How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine

The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).

It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.

Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.

Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.

Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.

Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities

Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.

In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.

However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.

For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.

The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”

Where It All Leads

The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.

“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.

This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.

“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.

“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted an application for Priority Review for dupilumab as an add-on therapy for adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a press release from manufacturer Regeneron.

If approved, dupilumab would be the only biologic option for COPD and the first new treatment option in approximately 10 years, according to the company.

Dupilumab works by blocking signaling by the interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13 pathways, and Regeneron’s development program focuses on a population of COPD patients who also have type 2 inflammation.

The supplemental Biologics License Application was based on data from a pair of clinical trials in the company’s phase 3 COPD clinical research program.

In the studies, known as BOREAS and NOTUS, adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation who were current or former smokers were randomized to 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab or placebo once every 2 weeks. Type 2 inflammation was defined as blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per microliter.

All patients received standard-of-care therapy. The primary endpoint of reduced annualized moderate or severe acute COPD exacerbations was 30% and 34% greater in the dupilumab groups in the two studies, respectively, compared with the placebo groups, and the significant differences in improvement persisted at 52 weeks.

Safety data were similar to previous studies of dupilumab for its approved indications. The most common adverse events seen in 5% or more of dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients across the two studies included back pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

Priority Review status is granted to applications for approval for therapies that may offer significant improvements, although the therapies are still in clinical development. The target action date for the FDA decision is June 27, 2024, and regulatory submissions for dupilumab for COPD are under consideration in China and Europe in addition to the United States, according to the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.