Clinical Endocrinology News

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes, baseline insulin resistance was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) but not kidney risk and did not affect the efficacy of finerenone. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Insulin resistance is implicated in CV disease in patients with CKD, but its role in CKD progression is less clear.
• This post hoc analysis of FIDELITY, a pooled analysis of the  and  trials, randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD (who received optimized renin-angiotensin system blockade) to receive finerenone (10 mg or 20 mg) once daily or placebo and followed them for a median of 3 years.
• An estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), a measure of insulin resistance, was calculated for 12,964 patients (median age, 65 years), using waist circumference, hypertension status, and glycated hemoglobin.
• Outcomes included a CV composite (time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and a kidney composite (time to renal failure, a sustained decrease ≥ 57% in the initial estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median eGDR was 4.1 mg/kg/min. The 50% of patients with a lower eGDR were considered insulin resistant, whereas the remaining half with a higher eGDR were considered insulin sensitive.
• The incidence rate of CV outcomes was higher among patients with insulin resistance in both the finerenone group (incidence rate per 100 patient-years, 5.18 vs 3.47 among insulin-sensitive patients) and the placebo group (6.34 vs 3.76), but eGDR showed no association with kidney outcomes.
• The efficacy of finerenone vs placebo on CV (Wald test P = .063) and kidney outcomes (Wald test P = .51) did not change significantly across the range of baseline eGDR values.
• The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and severe adverse events with finerenone were similar between the insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and safety of finerenone were not modified by baseline insulin resistance. A higher risk of CV — but not kidney outcomes was observed in patients with CKD and T2D with greater insulin resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Thomas Ebert of the Medical Department III — Endocrinology, Nephrology, Rheumatology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was not adequately powered to evaluate the statistical significance of the association of eGDR with CV and kidney outcomes and was hypothesis-generating. Further studies are needed to examine whether the effects of insulin resistance differ between individuals with diabetes vs those with advanced CKD with or without diabetes.

DISCLOSURES:

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials were conducted and sponsored by Bayer AG. Three authors declared being full-time employees of Bayer. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, consulting fees, grants, or research support from; holding patents with; or having ownership interests in various pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes, baseline insulin resistance was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) but not kidney risk and did not affect the efficacy of finerenone. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Insulin resistance is implicated in CV disease in patients with CKD, but its role in CKD progression is less clear.
• This post hoc analysis of FIDELITY, a pooled analysis of the  and  trials, randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD (who received optimized renin-angiotensin system blockade) to receive finerenone (10 mg or 20 mg) once daily or placebo and followed them for a median of 3 years.
• An estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), a measure of insulin resistance, was calculated for 12,964 patients (median age, 65 years), using waist circumference, hypertension status, and glycated hemoglobin.
• Outcomes included a CV composite (time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and a kidney composite (time to renal failure, a sustained decrease ≥ 57% in the initial estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median eGDR was 4.1 mg/kg/min. The 50% of patients with a lower eGDR were considered insulin resistant, whereas the remaining half with a higher eGDR were considered insulin sensitive.
• The incidence rate of CV outcomes was higher among patients with insulin resistance in both the finerenone group (incidence rate per 100 patient-years, 5.18 vs 3.47 among insulin-sensitive patients) and the placebo group (6.34 vs 3.76), but eGDR showed no association with kidney outcomes.
• The efficacy of finerenone vs placebo on CV (Wald test P = .063) and kidney outcomes (Wald test P = .51) did not change significantly across the range of baseline eGDR values.
• The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and severe adverse events with finerenone were similar between the insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and safety of finerenone were not modified by baseline insulin resistance. A higher risk of CV — but not kidney outcomes was observed in patients with CKD and T2D with greater insulin resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Thomas Ebert of the Medical Department III — Endocrinology, Nephrology, Rheumatology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was not adequately powered to evaluate the statistical significance of the association of eGDR with CV and kidney outcomes and was hypothesis-generating. Further studies are needed to examine whether the effects of insulin resistance differ between individuals with diabetes vs those with advanced CKD with or without diabetes.

DISCLOSURES:

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials were conducted and sponsored by Bayer AG. Three authors declared being full-time employees of Bayer. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, consulting fees, grants, or research support from; holding patents with; or having ownership interests in various pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes, baseline insulin resistance was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) but not kidney risk and did not affect the efficacy of finerenone. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Insulin resistance is implicated in CV disease in patients with CKD, but its role in CKD progression is less clear.
• This post hoc analysis of FIDELITY, a pooled analysis of the  and  trials, randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD (who received optimized renin-angiotensin system blockade) to receive finerenone (10 mg or 20 mg) once daily or placebo and followed them for a median of 3 years.
• An estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), a measure of insulin resistance, was calculated for 12,964 patients (median age, 65 years), using waist circumference, hypertension status, and glycated hemoglobin.
• Outcomes included a CV composite (time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and a kidney composite (time to renal failure, a sustained decrease ≥ 57% in the initial estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median eGDR was 4.1 mg/kg/min. The 50% of patients with a lower eGDR were considered insulin resistant, whereas the remaining half with a higher eGDR were considered insulin sensitive.
• The incidence rate of CV outcomes was higher among patients with insulin resistance in both the finerenone group (incidence rate per 100 patient-years, 5.18 vs 3.47 among insulin-sensitive patients) and the placebo group (6.34 vs 3.76), but eGDR showed no association with kidney outcomes.
• The efficacy of finerenone vs placebo on CV (Wald test P = .063) and kidney outcomes (Wald test P = .51) did not change significantly across the range of baseline eGDR values.
• The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and severe adverse events with finerenone were similar between the insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and safety of finerenone were not modified by baseline insulin resistance. A higher risk of CV — but not kidney outcomes was observed in patients with CKD and T2D with greater insulin resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Thomas Ebert of the Medical Department III — Endocrinology, Nephrology, Rheumatology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was not adequately powered to evaluate the statistical significance of the association of eGDR with CV and kidney outcomes and was hypothesis-generating. Further studies are needed to examine whether the effects of insulin resistance differ between individuals with diabetes vs those with advanced CKD with or without diabetes.

DISCLOSURES:

The FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials were conducted and sponsored by Bayer AG. Three authors declared being full-time employees of Bayer. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, consulting fees, grants, or research support from; holding patents with; or having ownership interests in various pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.