CHEST Physician

A simple and objective severity score based on activities of daily living, hypoxemia, and lymphocytes was an effective predictor of mortality in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis, based on data from approximately 400 individuals.

Although a mortality risk-prediction score could improve treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis patients, such a score has not been previously reported, wrote Takeshi Osawa, MD, of Fukujuji Hospital, Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers used 252 patients from a previous perspective study of newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis as the development cohort, and recruited 165 additional patients between March 2021 and September 2022.

The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Based on data from the development group, the researchers found that age 65 years and older and age 80 years and older, hypoxemia, activities of daily living, bilateral pulmonary lesions, lymphocyte count of less than 720 microliters, serum albumin less than 2.86 mg/dL, C-reactive protein (CRP) 3.97 mg/dL or higher, and procalcitonin (PCT) 0.130 ng/mL or higher were predictors of all-cause in hospital mortality.

The researchers used this information to create the disease severity score, known as the AHL score. The AHL included three clinical parameters: activity in daily living (semi-dependent, 1 point; totally dependent, 2 points); hypoxemia (1 point) and lymphocytes (< 720 /mcL, 1 point).

The scoring systems for the three parameters were, respectively, 1 point for semi-dependent and 2 points totally dependent (for activity in daily living), 1 point for presence of hypoxemia, and 1 point for lymphocytes less than 720 per microliter. The researchers stratified the scores into levels of low, intermediate, and high risk, with scores of 0, 1-2, and 3-4, respectively.

All-cause in hospital mortality occurred in 39 (15.5%) and 17 (10.3%) of patients in the developmental and validation cohorts, respectively.

The AHL score effectively predicted mortality, dividing patients into three groups of 1.3% low-risk, 8.9% intermediate risk, and 39.3% high-risk in the validation cohort, with a Harrell’s c-statistic of 0.842.

The corresponding numbers for the development cohort were 0, 13.5%, and 55.8%, with a c-statistic of 0.902.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data from “smear-negative” patients who were treated as outpatients, and more research is needed to determine the applicability of the AHL score in an outpatient population, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on long-term mortality in surviving patients who were discharged, and the reliance on assessments that can be performed only in clinical settings in developed countries, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the AHL score in clinical settings to accurately predict mortality in patients with pulmonary TB, and may help optimize treatments for this population, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. All authors disclosed nonfinancial support in the form of measuring reagents from Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation during the study but had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A simple and objective severity score based on activities of daily living, hypoxemia, and lymphocytes was an effective predictor of mortality in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis, based on data from approximately 400 individuals.

Although a mortality risk-prediction score could improve treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis patients, such a score has not been previously reported, wrote Takeshi Osawa, MD, of Fukujuji Hospital, Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers used 252 patients from a previous perspective study of newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis as the development cohort, and recruited 165 additional patients between March 2021 and September 2022.

The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Based on data from the development group, the researchers found that age 65 years and older and age 80 years and older, hypoxemia, activities of daily living, bilateral pulmonary lesions, lymphocyte count of less than 720 microliters, serum albumin less than 2.86 mg/dL, C-reactive protein (CRP) 3.97 mg/dL or higher, and procalcitonin (PCT) 0.130 ng/mL or higher were predictors of all-cause in hospital mortality.

The researchers used this information to create the disease severity score, known as the AHL score. The AHL included three clinical parameters: activity in daily living (semi-dependent, 1 point; totally dependent, 2 points); hypoxemia (1 point) and lymphocytes (< 720 /mcL, 1 point).

The scoring systems for the three parameters were, respectively, 1 point for semi-dependent and 2 points totally dependent (for activity in daily living), 1 point for presence of hypoxemia, and 1 point for lymphocytes less than 720 per microliter. The researchers stratified the scores into levels of low, intermediate, and high risk, with scores of 0, 1-2, and 3-4, respectively.

All-cause in hospital mortality occurred in 39 (15.5%) and 17 (10.3%) of patients in the developmental and validation cohorts, respectively.

The AHL score effectively predicted mortality, dividing patients into three groups of 1.3% low-risk, 8.9% intermediate risk, and 39.3% high-risk in the validation cohort, with a Harrell’s c-statistic of 0.842.

The corresponding numbers for the development cohort were 0, 13.5%, and 55.8%, with a c-statistic of 0.902.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data from “smear-negative” patients who were treated as outpatients, and more research is needed to determine the applicability of the AHL score in an outpatient population, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on long-term mortality in surviving patients who were discharged, and the reliance on assessments that can be performed only in clinical settings in developed countries, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the AHL score in clinical settings to accurately predict mortality in patients with pulmonary TB, and may help optimize treatments for this population, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. All authors disclosed nonfinancial support in the form of measuring reagents from Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation during the study but had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A simple and objective severity score based on activities of daily living, hypoxemia, and lymphocytes was an effective predictor of mortality in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis, based on data from approximately 400 individuals.

Although a mortality risk-prediction score could improve treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis patients, such a score has not been previously reported, wrote Takeshi Osawa, MD, of Fukujuji Hospital, Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers used 252 patients from a previous perspective study of newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis as the development cohort, and recruited 165 additional patients between March 2021 and September 2022.

The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Based on data from the development group, the researchers found that age 65 years and older and age 80 years and older, hypoxemia, activities of daily living, bilateral pulmonary lesions, lymphocyte count of less than 720 microliters, serum albumin less than 2.86 mg/dL, C-reactive protein (CRP) 3.97 mg/dL or higher, and procalcitonin (PCT) 0.130 ng/mL or higher were predictors of all-cause in hospital mortality.

The researchers used this information to create the disease severity score, known as the AHL score. The AHL included three clinical parameters: activity in daily living (semi-dependent, 1 point; totally dependent, 2 points); hypoxemia (1 point) and lymphocytes (< 720 /mcL, 1 point).

The scoring systems for the three parameters were, respectively, 1 point for semi-dependent and 2 points totally dependent (for activity in daily living), 1 point for presence of hypoxemia, and 1 point for lymphocytes less than 720 per microliter. The researchers stratified the scores into levels of low, intermediate, and high risk, with scores of 0, 1-2, and 3-4, respectively.

All-cause in hospital mortality occurred in 39 (15.5%) and 17 (10.3%) of patients in the developmental and validation cohorts, respectively.

The AHL score effectively predicted mortality, dividing patients into three groups of 1.3% low-risk, 8.9% intermediate risk, and 39.3% high-risk in the validation cohort, with a Harrell’s c-statistic of 0.842.

The corresponding numbers for the development cohort were 0, 13.5%, and 55.8%, with a c-statistic of 0.902.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data from “smear-negative” patients who were treated as outpatients, and more research is needed to determine the applicability of the AHL score in an outpatient population, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on long-term mortality in surviving patients who were discharged, and the reliance on assessments that can be performed only in clinical settings in developed countries, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the AHL score in clinical settings to accurately predict mortality in patients with pulmonary TB, and may help optimize treatments for this population, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. All authors disclosed nonfinancial support in the form of measuring reagents from Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation during the study but had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Critically ill influenza patients with associated pulmonary aspergillosis were more than twice as likely to die in intensive care than those without the added infection, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,700 individuals.

Reports of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) are rising in critically ill patients, but data on risk factors, clinical features, and outcomes are limited, Lawrence Y. Lu, MD, of The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote. In addition, diagnosis of IAPA can be challenging, and many clinicians report low awareness of the condition.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 10 observational studies including 1,720 critically ill influenza patients aged 16 years and older; of these, 331 had IAPA, for a prevalence of 19.2%. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality in the hospital and in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the need for supportive care (invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, pressor support, and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation).

Overall, mortality among flu patients in the ICU was significantly higher for those with IAPA than those without IAPA (45.0% vs. 23.8%, respectively), as was all-cause mortality (46.4% vs. 26.2%, respectively; odds ratio, 2.6 and P < .001 for both ICU and all-cause mortality).

Factors significantly associated with an increased risk for IAPA included organ transplant (OR, 4.8), hematogenous malignancy (OR, 2.5), being immunocompromised in some way (OR, 2.2), and prolonged corticosteroid use prior to hospital admission (OR, 2.4).

IAPA also was associated with more severe disease, a higher rate of complications, longer ICU stays, and a greater need for organ supports, the researchers noted. Clinical features not significantly more common in patients with IAPA included fever, hemoptysis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the included studies and inability to control for all potential confounders, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variations in study design, variability of practice patterns across locations, and inclusion of data mainly from countries of high socioeconomic status.

“Given the apparent waning of the COVID-19 pandemic and re-emergence of influenza, our analysis also revealed other gaps in the current literature, including the need to validate newer diagnostic methods and to develop a system to measure severity of IAPA,” the researchers added.

However, the current study results reflect IAPA prevalence from previous studies, and support the need to have a lower threshold for IAPA testing and initiation of antifungal treatment, even with limited data for clinical guidance, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Critically ill influenza patients with associated pulmonary aspergillosis were more than twice as likely to die in intensive care than those without the added infection, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,700 individuals.

Reports of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) are rising in critically ill patients, but data on risk factors, clinical features, and outcomes are limited, Lawrence Y. Lu, MD, of The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote. In addition, diagnosis of IAPA can be challenging, and many clinicians report low awareness of the condition.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 10 observational studies including 1,720 critically ill influenza patients aged 16 years and older; of these, 331 had IAPA, for a prevalence of 19.2%. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality in the hospital and in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the need for supportive care (invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, pressor support, and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation).

Overall, mortality among flu patients in the ICU was significantly higher for those with IAPA than those without IAPA (45.0% vs. 23.8%, respectively), as was all-cause mortality (46.4% vs. 26.2%, respectively; odds ratio, 2.6 and P < .001 for both ICU and all-cause mortality).

Factors significantly associated with an increased risk for IAPA included organ transplant (OR, 4.8), hematogenous malignancy (OR, 2.5), being immunocompromised in some way (OR, 2.2), and prolonged corticosteroid use prior to hospital admission (OR, 2.4).

IAPA also was associated with more severe disease, a higher rate of complications, longer ICU stays, and a greater need for organ supports, the researchers noted. Clinical features not significantly more common in patients with IAPA included fever, hemoptysis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the included studies and inability to control for all potential confounders, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variations in study design, variability of practice patterns across locations, and inclusion of data mainly from countries of high socioeconomic status.

“Given the apparent waning of the COVID-19 pandemic and re-emergence of influenza, our analysis also revealed other gaps in the current literature, including the need to validate newer diagnostic methods and to develop a system to measure severity of IAPA,” the researchers added.

However, the current study results reflect IAPA prevalence from previous studies, and support the need to have a lower threshold for IAPA testing and initiation of antifungal treatment, even with limited data for clinical guidance, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Critically ill influenza patients with associated pulmonary aspergillosis were more than twice as likely to die in intensive care than those without the added infection, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 1,700 individuals.

Reports of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) are rising in critically ill patients, but data on risk factors, clinical features, and outcomes are limited, Lawrence Y. Lu, MD, of The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote. In addition, diagnosis of IAPA can be challenging, and many clinicians report low awareness of the condition.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 10 observational studies including 1,720 critically ill influenza patients aged 16 years and older; of these, 331 had IAPA, for a prevalence of 19.2%. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality in the hospital and in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the need for supportive care (invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, pressor support, and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation).

Overall, mortality among flu patients in the ICU was significantly higher for those with IAPA than those without IAPA (45.0% vs. 23.8%, respectively), as was all-cause mortality (46.4% vs. 26.2%, respectively; odds ratio, 2.6 and P < .001 for both ICU and all-cause mortality).

Factors significantly associated with an increased risk for IAPA included organ transplant (OR, 4.8), hematogenous malignancy (OR, 2.5), being immunocompromised in some way (OR, 2.2), and prolonged corticosteroid use prior to hospital admission (OR, 2.4).

IAPA also was associated with more severe disease, a higher rate of complications, longer ICU stays, and a greater need for organ supports, the researchers noted. Clinical features not significantly more common in patients with IAPA included fever, hemoptysis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the included studies and inability to control for all potential confounders, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variations in study design, variability of practice patterns across locations, and inclusion of data mainly from countries of high socioeconomic status.

“Given the apparent waning of the COVID-19 pandemic and re-emergence of influenza, our analysis also revealed other gaps in the current literature, including the need to validate newer diagnostic methods and to develop a system to measure severity of IAPA,” the researchers added.

However, the current study results reflect IAPA prevalence from previous studies, and support the need to have a lower threshold for IAPA testing and initiation of antifungal treatment, even with limited data for clinical guidance, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

Nearly half of patients undergoing drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) experienced a sentinel central event after an average of 6 minutes in a study of 103 individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

DISE has become the top choice for surgical selection in patients with OSA, but it has a variable effect on surgical outcomes, Julianna G. Rodin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues explained.

The University of Pennsylvania sleep surgery team developed a comprehensive DISE platform that includes simultaneous collection of respiratory airflow and effort measurements, airway collapsibility, and videoendoscopy.

“This home sleep study-style setup has allowed us to better characterize the upper airway during DISE, and even helped our team diagnose a patient with Cheyne-Stokes breathing/central sleep apnea,” Dr. Rodin said in an interview.

“With it, we also began to notice relatively frequent central and/or mixed sleep disordered breathing events during DISE after propofol dosing initiation,” she said.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Dr. Rodin and colleagues measured both the frequency and timing of sentinel central and/or mixed events (SCent) in adults undergoing DISE to assess the prevalence and impact on DISE.

The researchers also assessed differences in VOTE classification (velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis) in sentinel central events, compared with obstructive events. VOTE scores were calculated using a grade of 0 for no obstruction, 1 for partial obstruction, and 2 for total obstruction.

The study population included 103 adults with OSA who underwent DISE with propofol sedation at a single tertiary academic medical center between June 2020 and November 2022. The mean age of the participants was 53.5 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7 kg/m², and 67% were male. The average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 30.7 events per hour. The researchers used a polysomnography platform to capture data on nasal airflow, thoraco-abdominal effort belt signals, and videoendoscopy.

A total of 47 patients (46%) had at least one SCent. The average time to the first SCent was just under 6 minutes, and average transition to obstructive pathology in these patients occurred between 7 and 8 minutes. Using the one-sided prediction interval, at least 95% of patients were expected to transition to obstructive pathology within 12-13 minutes, Dr. Rodin said.

In addition, 29 of the 46 patients with SCent (63%) showed significant variability between central/mixed VOTE scores and obstructive VOTE scores.

No statistically significant differences were noted between patients with and without SCent in terms of demographics or AHI.
 

Surprising prevalence of SCents

“We anecdotally noted that SCents seemed to be somewhat common during the initial period of DISE, but were surprised that we saw at least one SCent in almost 50% of our DISE population,” Dr. Rodin said. “We also saw that the majority of these SCents eventually transitioned to obstructive events after approximately 12 minutes, which is often past the average duration of normal DISE exams.”

The high frequency of differing VOTE scores between SCents and obstructive events also was unexpected, she added. Within the changes in VOTE scores as defined in the study, “there was a higher tendency for SCents to have more complete tongue base collapse compared to no or partial collapse in obstructive events, and to transition from anterior-posterior velum to concentric velum collapse during the obstructive event.”

This outcome could potentially affect a patient’s candidacy for hypoglossal nerve stimulator therapy, she explained.

The takeaway from the current study is an increased awareness of the prevalence and timing of SCents in OSA patients, said Dr. Rodin. Clinicians who offer DISE and PAP alternatives also should be mindful of clinical signs of effort, by monitoring the chest and abdomen during DISE in the absence of respiratory effort belts.

The study findings also suggest that clinicians consider extending the minimum DISE duration to 10 minutes to ensure that the majority of SCents have passed, and delay VOTE scoring until patients transition to obstructive events, she added.

As for additional research, Dr. Rodin said: “If we could repeat the study with a standardized protocol of target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, that would further bolster the data.” However, TCI is not approved in the United States.

“Our propofol dosing technique was not standardized across all patients, which in theory could account for more SCents if patients were more sedated,” Dr. Rodin noted. “However, we did not see a difference in average bispectral index levels across all patients.”

Other limitations of the current study included an inability to visualize the entire upper airway to achieve a complete VOTE score for every patient, which could have led to underestimation of the VOTE difference frequency, she added.
 

Data inform team approaches to DISE

As DISE procedures become more widespread, “it is paramount that we understand the risks associated with these procedures to increase safety, improve shared decision-making, and encourage a team-based approach in the operating room with our anesthesia colleagues,” said Daniel M. Zeitler, MD, from the University of Washington and Virgina Mason Medical Center, both in Seattle, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I was surprised by these data for two reasons,” Dr. Zeitler said in an interview. “We typically don’t wait more than a few minutes between induction of anesthesia and the initiation of the airway procedure. This study calls that practice into question, and the duration of time before the onset of a sentinel event was much longer than I would have expected,” he said.

Second, “I was quite surprised that there were no differences in the demographics or AHI between the two groups; this reminds us that AHI and BMI alone may not be themselves predictive of risk and all patients should be assessed similarly.”

“Otolaryngologists performing DISE need to be aware of these data, communicate them to the involved teams, including anesthesia, nursing, and postanesthesia care units, and remember to delay the manipulation of the airway long enough to minimize the risk of a sentinel event,” Dr. Zeitler said. “Perhaps this also means we need improved intraoperative monitoring for these patients, including respiratory airflow and effort monitoring.”

For further research, “we need to increase the number of patients, perform a multicenter study, and expand the study to a wider range of ages, BMI, and AHI,” he added. A recommended algorithm for these cases in order to standardize the practice would be useful.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodin and Dr. Zeitler reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed funding and relationships with multiple companies unrelated to the current study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of patients undergoing drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) experienced a sentinel central event after an average of 6 minutes in a study of 103 individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

DISE has become the top choice for surgical selection in patients with OSA, but it has a variable effect on surgical outcomes, Julianna G. Rodin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues explained.

The University of Pennsylvania sleep surgery team developed a comprehensive DISE platform that includes simultaneous collection of respiratory airflow and effort measurements, airway collapsibility, and videoendoscopy.

“This home sleep study-style setup has allowed us to better characterize the upper airway during DISE, and even helped our team diagnose a patient with Cheyne-Stokes breathing/central sleep apnea,” Dr. Rodin said in an interview.

“With it, we also began to notice relatively frequent central and/or mixed sleep disordered breathing events during DISE after propofol dosing initiation,” she said.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Dr. Rodin and colleagues measured both the frequency and timing of sentinel central and/or mixed events (SCent) in adults undergoing DISE to assess the prevalence and impact on DISE.

The researchers also assessed differences in VOTE classification (velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis) in sentinel central events, compared with obstructive events. VOTE scores were calculated using a grade of 0 for no obstruction, 1 for partial obstruction, and 2 for total obstruction.

The study population included 103 adults with OSA who underwent DISE with propofol sedation at a single tertiary academic medical center between June 2020 and November 2022. The mean age of the participants was 53.5 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7 kg/m², and 67% were male. The average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 30.7 events per hour. The researchers used a polysomnography platform to capture data on nasal airflow, thoraco-abdominal effort belt signals, and videoendoscopy.

A total of 47 patients (46%) had at least one SCent. The average time to the first SCent was just under 6 minutes, and average transition to obstructive pathology in these patients occurred between 7 and 8 minutes. Using the one-sided prediction interval, at least 95% of patients were expected to transition to obstructive pathology within 12-13 minutes, Dr. Rodin said.

In addition, 29 of the 46 patients with SCent (63%) showed significant variability between central/mixed VOTE scores and obstructive VOTE scores.

No statistically significant differences were noted between patients with and without SCent in terms of demographics or AHI.
 

Surprising prevalence of SCents

“We anecdotally noted that SCents seemed to be somewhat common during the initial period of DISE, but were surprised that we saw at least one SCent in almost 50% of our DISE population,” Dr. Rodin said. “We also saw that the majority of these SCents eventually transitioned to obstructive events after approximately 12 minutes, which is often past the average duration of normal DISE exams.”

The high frequency of differing VOTE scores between SCents and obstructive events also was unexpected, she added. Within the changes in VOTE scores as defined in the study, “there was a higher tendency for SCents to have more complete tongue base collapse compared to no or partial collapse in obstructive events, and to transition from anterior-posterior velum to concentric velum collapse during the obstructive event.”

This outcome could potentially affect a patient’s candidacy for hypoglossal nerve stimulator therapy, she explained.

The takeaway from the current study is an increased awareness of the prevalence and timing of SCents in OSA patients, said Dr. Rodin. Clinicians who offer DISE and PAP alternatives also should be mindful of clinical signs of effort, by monitoring the chest and abdomen during DISE in the absence of respiratory effort belts.

The study findings also suggest that clinicians consider extending the minimum DISE duration to 10 minutes to ensure that the majority of SCents have passed, and delay VOTE scoring until patients transition to obstructive events, she added.

As for additional research, Dr. Rodin said: “If we could repeat the study with a standardized protocol of target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, that would further bolster the data.” However, TCI is not approved in the United States.

“Our propofol dosing technique was not standardized across all patients, which in theory could account for more SCents if patients were more sedated,” Dr. Rodin noted. “However, we did not see a difference in average bispectral index levels across all patients.”

Other limitations of the current study included an inability to visualize the entire upper airway to achieve a complete VOTE score for every patient, which could have led to underestimation of the VOTE difference frequency, she added.
 

Data inform team approaches to DISE

As DISE procedures become more widespread, “it is paramount that we understand the risks associated with these procedures to increase safety, improve shared decision-making, and encourage a team-based approach in the operating room with our anesthesia colleagues,” said Daniel M. Zeitler, MD, from the University of Washington and Virgina Mason Medical Center, both in Seattle, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I was surprised by these data for two reasons,” Dr. Zeitler said in an interview. “We typically don’t wait more than a few minutes between induction of anesthesia and the initiation of the airway procedure. This study calls that practice into question, and the duration of time before the onset of a sentinel event was much longer than I would have expected,” he said.

Second, “I was quite surprised that there were no differences in the demographics or AHI between the two groups; this reminds us that AHI and BMI alone may not be themselves predictive of risk and all patients should be assessed similarly.”

“Otolaryngologists performing DISE need to be aware of these data, communicate them to the involved teams, including anesthesia, nursing, and postanesthesia care units, and remember to delay the manipulation of the airway long enough to minimize the risk of a sentinel event,” Dr. Zeitler said. “Perhaps this also means we need improved intraoperative monitoring for these patients, including respiratory airflow and effort monitoring.”

For further research, “we need to increase the number of patients, perform a multicenter study, and expand the study to a wider range of ages, BMI, and AHI,” he added. A recommended algorithm for these cases in order to standardize the practice would be useful.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodin and Dr. Zeitler reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed funding and relationships with multiple companies unrelated to the current study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of patients undergoing drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) experienced a sentinel central event after an average of 6 minutes in a study of 103 individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

DISE has become the top choice for surgical selection in patients with OSA, but it has a variable effect on surgical outcomes, Julianna G. Rodin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues explained.

The University of Pennsylvania sleep surgery team developed a comprehensive DISE platform that includes simultaneous collection of respiratory airflow and effort measurements, airway collapsibility, and videoendoscopy.

“This home sleep study-style setup has allowed us to better characterize the upper airway during DISE, and even helped our team diagnose a patient with Cheyne-Stokes breathing/central sleep apnea,” Dr. Rodin said in an interview.

“With it, we also began to notice relatively frequent central and/or mixed sleep disordered breathing events during DISE after propofol dosing initiation,” she said.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Dr. Rodin and colleagues measured both the frequency and timing of sentinel central and/or mixed events (SCent) in adults undergoing DISE to assess the prevalence and impact on DISE.

The researchers also assessed differences in VOTE classification (velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis) in sentinel central events, compared with obstructive events. VOTE scores were calculated using a grade of 0 for no obstruction, 1 for partial obstruction, and 2 for total obstruction.

The study population included 103 adults with OSA who underwent DISE with propofol sedation at a single tertiary academic medical center between June 2020 and November 2022. The mean age of the participants was 53.5 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7 kg/m², and 67% were male. The average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 30.7 events per hour. The researchers used a polysomnography platform to capture data on nasal airflow, thoraco-abdominal effort belt signals, and videoendoscopy.

A total of 47 patients (46%) had at least one SCent. The average time to the first SCent was just under 6 minutes, and average transition to obstructive pathology in these patients occurred between 7 and 8 minutes. Using the one-sided prediction interval, at least 95% of patients were expected to transition to obstructive pathology within 12-13 minutes, Dr. Rodin said.

In addition, 29 of the 46 patients with SCent (63%) showed significant variability between central/mixed VOTE scores and obstructive VOTE scores.

No statistically significant differences were noted between patients with and without SCent in terms of demographics or AHI.
 

Surprising prevalence of SCents

“We anecdotally noted that SCents seemed to be somewhat common during the initial period of DISE, but were surprised that we saw at least one SCent in almost 50% of our DISE population,” Dr. Rodin said. “We also saw that the majority of these SCents eventually transitioned to obstructive events after approximately 12 minutes, which is often past the average duration of normal DISE exams.”

The high frequency of differing VOTE scores between SCents and obstructive events also was unexpected, she added. Within the changes in VOTE scores as defined in the study, “there was a higher tendency for SCents to have more complete tongue base collapse compared to no or partial collapse in obstructive events, and to transition from anterior-posterior velum to concentric velum collapse during the obstructive event.”

This outcome could potentially affect a patient’s candidacy for hypoglossal nerve stimulator therapy, she explained.

The takeaway from the current study is an increased awareness of the prevalence and timing of SCents in OSA patients, said Dr. Rodin. Clinicians who offer DISE and PAP alternatives also should be mindful of clinical signs of effort, by monitoring the chest and abdomen during DISE in the absence of respiratory effort belts.

The study findings also suggest that clinicians consider extending the minimum DISE duration to 10 minutes to ensure that the majority of SCents have passed, and delay VOTE scoring until patients transition to obstructive events, she added.

As for additional research, Dr. Rodin said: “If we could repeat the study with a standardized protocol of target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, that would further bolster the data.” However, TCI is not approved in the United States.

“Our propofol dosing technique was not standardized across all patients, which in theory could account for more SCents if patients were more sedated,” Dr. Rodin noted. “However, we did not see a difference in average bispectral index levels across all patients.”

Other limitations of the current study included an inability to visualize the entire upper airway to achieve a complete VOTE score for every patient, which could have led to underestimation of the VOTE difference frequency, she added.
 

Data inform team approaches to DISE

As DISE procedures become more widespread, “it is paramount that we understand the risks associated with these procedures to increase safety, improve shared decision-making, and encourage a team-based approach in the operating room with our anesthesia colleagues,” said Daniel M. Zeitler, MD, from the University of Washington and Virgina Mason Medical Center, both in Seattle, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I was surprised by these data for two reasons,” Dr. Zeitler said in an interview. “We typically don’t wait more than a few minutes between induction of anesthesia and the initiation of the airway procedure. This study calls that practice into question, and the duration of time before the onset of a sentinel event was much longer than I would have expected,” he said.

Second, “I was quite surprised that there were no differences in the demographics or AHI between the two groups; this reminds us that AHI and BMI alone may not be themselves predictive of risk and all patients should be assessed similarly.”

“Otolaryngologists performing DISE need to be aware of these data, communicate them to the involved teams, including anesthesia, nursing, and postanesthesia care units, and remember to delay the manipulation of the airway long enough to minimize the risk of a sentinel event,” Dr. Zeitler said. “Perhaps this also means we need improved intraoperative monitoring for these patients, including respiratory airflow and effort monitoring.”

For further research, “we need to increase the number of patients, perform a multicenter study, and expand the study to a wider range of ages, BMI, and AHI,” he added. A recommended algorithm for these cases in order to standardize the practice would be useful.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodin and Dr. Zeitler reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed funding and relationships with multiple companies unrelated to the current study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People with long COVID have specific biomarkers in their blood, according to results of a study published in Nature. 

The findings may be a step toward creating blood tests to positively identify people with long COVID so specialized treatments can be employed, researchers said.

 “This is a decisive step forward in the development of valid and reliable blood testing protocols for long COVID,” said David Putrino, PhD., lead author and professor of rehabilitation and human performance and director of the Abilities Research Center at Icahn Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Yale School of Medicine looked at blood samples from about 270 people between January 2021 and June 2022. The people had never been infected with COVID, had fully recovered from an infection, or still showed symptoms at least four months after infection.

Using machine learning, the research teams were able to differentiate between people with and without long COVID with 96% accuracy based on distinctive features in the blood samples, according to a news release from Mount Sinai.

People with long COVID had abnormal T-cell activity and low levels of the hormone cortisol. Cortisol helps people feel alert and awake, which would explain why people with long COVID often report fatigue, NBC News said in a report on the study.

“It was one of the findings that most definitively separated the folks with long Covid from the people without long Covid,” Dr. Putrino told NBC News.

The study also found that long COVID appears to reactivate latent viruses including Epstein-Barr and mononucleosis, the study said.

The blood tests could allow doctors to come up with specialized treatments in people who report a wide variety of long COVID symptoms, Dr. Putrino said. 

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ for treating long COVID, because it is an illness that infiltrates complex systems such as the immune and hormonal regulation,” he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about one in five Americans who had COVID still have long COVID. Symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, digestive problems, and loss of smell and taste.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral COVID medication made by Merck can cause mutations in the coronavirus that occasionally spread to other people, according to a study published in the online journal Nature.

There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.

Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.

Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.

The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.

Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.

“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.

The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.

“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.

When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.

“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral COVID medication made by Merck can cause mutations in the coronavirus that occasionally spread to other people, according to a study published in the online journal Nature.

There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.

Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.

Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.

The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.

Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.

“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.

The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.

“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.

When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.

“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral COVID medication made by Merck can cause mutations in the coronavirus that occasionally spread to other people, according to a study published in the online journal Nature.

There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.

Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.

Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.

The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.

Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.

“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.

The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.

“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.

When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.

“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The second patient to be transplanted with a genetically modified pig heart at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, is said to be stable and doing well after the Sept. 22 operation. The organ passed an early test by avoiding hyperacute rejection.

Physicians for the patient, a 58-year-old former lab tech repeatedly turned down for standard allograft transplantation, say they are making good use of lessons from last year’s case of David Bennett, who survived in hospital with difficulty for 2 months after receiving the first such heart at the center in January 2022.

Mr. Bennett’s clinical course had been promising at first but grew turbulent with repeated bouts of infection followed by adjustments to his aggressive immunosuppressant regimen and other complications.

It was also learned weeks after the xenotransplant operation that the heart from the genetically modified donor pig had carried a porcine cytomegalovirus to Mr. Bennett’s body, although there was never evidence that the virus infected other organs or played a major role in his death.

The new xenotransplant recipient, Lawrence Faucette of Frederick, Md., is benefiting from that experience, which was documented in journal reports.

Mr. Faucette had been turned down by UMMC “and several other leading transplant hospitals due to his pre-existing peripheral vascular disease and complications with internal bleeding,” notes a UMMC press release describing his procedure.

The patient “is currently breathing on his own, and his heart is functioning well without any assistance from supportive devices,” says the statement.

Despite a few setbacks, Mr. Faucette is “on the right track,” said Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, surgeon and xenotransplantation program director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview.

“We’re taking one day at a time. His immune system is still intact, despite the heavy immune suppression,” he told this news organization. His heart didn’t carry a virus and “has not shown any signs of rejection so far.”

The University of Maryland team, Dr. Mohiuddin said, “is very hopeful that we will be able to at least mobilize the patient, and he can be discharged. But it’s a little too early to call.”

Mr. Faucette, as part of his immunosuppressant regimen, is receiving tegoprubart (Eledon Pharmaceuticals), an investigational antibody that blocks CD40 ligand. His predecessor Mr. Bennett, in contrast, had received a blocker of the CD40 receptor (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals) along with other more familiar immunosuppressants.

The new anti–CD40-ligand blocker, Eledon said, is in phase 1 studies looking at efficacy in patients with conventional kidney transplants.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The second patient to be transplanted with a genetically modified pig heart at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, is said to be stable and doing well after the Sept. 22 operation. The organ passed an early test by avoiding hyperacute rejection.

Physicians for the patient, a 58-year-old former lab tech repeatedly turned down for standard allograft transplantation, say they are making good use of lessons from last year’s case of David Bennett, who survived in hospital with difficulty for 2 months after receiving the first such heart at the center in January 2022.

Mr. Bennett’s clinical course had been promising at first but grew turbulent with repeated bouts of infection followed by adjustments to his aggressive immunosuppressant regimen and other complications.

It was also learned weeks after the xenotransplant operation that the heart from the genetically modified donor pig had carried a porcine cytomegalovirus to Mr. Bennett’s body, although there was never evidence that the virus infected other organs or played a major role in his death.

The new xenotransplant recipient, Lawrence Faucette of Frederick, Md., is benefiting from that experience, which was documented in journal reports.

Mr. Faucette had been turned down by UMMC “and several other leading transplant hospitals due to his pre-existing peripheral vascular disease and complications with internal bleeding,” notes a UMMC press release describing his procedure.

The patient “is currently breathing on his own, and his heart is functioning well without any assistance from supportive devices,” says the statement.

Despite a few setbacks, Mr. Faucette is “on the right track,” said Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, surgeon and xenotransplantation program director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview.

“We’re taking one day at a time. His immune system is still intact, despite the heavy immune suppression,” he told this news organization. His heart didn’t carry a virus and “has not shown any signs of rejection so far.”

The University of Maryland team, Dr. Mohiuddin said, “is very hopeful that we will be able to at least mobilize the patient, and he can be discharged. But it’s a little too early to call.”

Mr. Faucette, as part of his immunosuppressant regimen, is receiving tegoprubart (Eledon Pharmaceuticals), an investigational antibody that blocks CD40 ligand. His predecessor Mr. Bennett, in contrast, had received a blocker of the CD40 receptor (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals) along with other more familiar immunosuppressants.

The new anti–CD40-ligand blocker, Eledon said, is in phase 1 studies looking at efficacy in patients with conventional kidney transplants.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The second patient to be transplanted with a genetically modified pig heart at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, is said to be stable and doing well after the Sept. 22 operation. The organ passed an early test by avoiding hyperacute rejection.

Physicians for the patient, a 58-year-old former lab tech repeatedly turned down for standard allograft transplantation, say they are making good use of lessons from last year’s case of David Bennett, who survived in hospital with difficulty for 2 months after receiving the first such heart at the center in January 2022.

Mr. Bennett’s clinical course had been promising at first but grew turbulent with repeated bouts of infection followed by adjustments to his aggressive immunosuppressant regimen and other complications.

It was also learned weeks after the xenotransplant operation that the heart from the genetically modified donor pig had carried a porcine cytomegalovirus to Mr. Bennett’s body, although there was never evidence that the virus infected other organs or played a major role in his death.

The new xenotransplant recipient, Lawrence Faucette of Frederick, Md., is benefiting from that experience, which was documented in journal reports.

Mr. Faucette had been turned down by UMMC “and several other leading transplant hospitals due to his pre-existing peripheral vascular disease and complications with internal bleeding,” notes a UMMC press release describing his procedure.

The patient “is currently breathing on his own, and his heart is functioning well without any assistance from supportive devices,” says the statement.

Despite a few setbacks, Mr. Faucette is “on the right track,” said Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, surgeon and xenotransplantation program director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview.

“We’re taking one day at a time. His immune system is still intact, despite the heavy immune suppression,” he told this news organization. His heart didn’t carry a virus and “has not shown any signs of rejection so far.”

The University of Maryland team, Dr. Mohiuddin said, “is very hopeful that we will be able to at least mobilize the patient, and he can be discharged. But it’s a little too early to call.”

Mr. Faucette, as part of his immunosuppressant regimen, is receiving tegoprubart (Eledon Pharmaceuticals), an investigational antibody that blocks CD40 ligand. His predecessor Mr. Bennett, in contrast, had received a blocker of the CD40 receptor (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals) along with other more familiar immunosuppressants.

The new anti–CD40-ligand blocker, Eledon said, is in phase 1 studies looking at efficacy in patients with conventional kidney transplants.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.