Cardiology News

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medtronic is recalling a single lot of HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) System batteries because of welding defects that may cause separation of the two cell battery packs used to power the system, according to an alert on the Food and Drug Administration website.

“The welding defect may cause the battery to malfunction and no longer provide power or prevent the battery from holding a full charge or properly recharging,” the FDA said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type because of the potential for serious injury or death.

Medtronic reports one death associated with this recall and two complaints in the affected lot.

Back in April, as reported by this news organization, Medtronic alerted providers that patients implanted with the Medtronic HVAD System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump that causes the pump to malfunction.

The batteries from the recalled lot have a model number of 1650DE, were manufactured from April 13 to 19, 2021 and distributed from April 20 to July 19, 2021. The recall affects a total of 429 devices.

On May 5, 2022, Medtronic sent an urgent medical device correction notice to customers asking them to identify and quarantine all affected batteries and notify affected patients. The notice includes a patient template to help communicate directly with patients.

It also includes a customer confirmation form to initiate an exchange. The completed form should be returned to [email protected].

Medtronic is replacing the affected batteries with new product and has implemented actions to improve control of the welding process.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it’s been fraught with problems.

Earlier in June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic is recalling a single lot of HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) System batteries because of welding defects that may cause separation of the two cell battery packs used to power the system, according to an alert on the Food and Drug Administration website.

“The welding defect may cause the battery to malfunction and no longer provide power or prevent the battery from holding a full charge or properly recharging,” the FDA said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type because of the potential for serious injury or death.

Medtronic reports one death associated with this recall and two complaints in the affected lot.

Back in April, as reported by this news organization, Medtronic alerted providers that patients implanted with the Medtronic HVAD System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump that causes the pump to malfunction.

The batteries from the recalled lot have a model number of 1650DE, were manufactured from April 13 to 19, 2021 and distributed from April 20 to July 19, 2021. The recall affects a total of 429 devices.

On May 5, 2022, Medtronic sent an urgent medical device correction notice to customers asking them to identify and quarantine all affected batteries and notify affected patients. The notice includes a patient template to help communicate directly with patients.

It also includes a customer confirmation form to initiate an exchange. The completed form should be returned to [email protected].

Medtronic is replacing the affected batteries with new product and has implemented actions to improve control of the welding process.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it’s been fraught with problems.

Earlier in June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic is recalling a single lot of HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) System batteries because of welding defects that may cause separation of the two cell battery packs used to power the system, according to an alert on the Food and Drug Administration website.

“The welding defect may cause the battery to malfunction and no longer provide power or prevent the battery from holding a full charge or properly recharging,” the FDA said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type because of the potential for serious injury or death.

Medtronic reports one death associated with this recall and two complaints in the affected lot.

Back in April, as reported by this news organization, Medtronic alerted providers that patients implanted with the Medtronic HVAD System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump that causes the pump to malfunction.

The batteries from the recalled lot have a model number of 1650DE, were manufactured from April 13 to 19, 2021 and distributed from April 20 to July 19, 2021. The recall affects a total of 429 devices.

On May 5, 2022, Medtronic sent an urgent medical device correction notice to customers asking them to identify and quarantine all affected batteries and notify affected patients. The notice includes a patient template to help communicate directly with patients.

It also includes a customer confirmation form to initiate an exchange. The completed form should be returned to [email protected].

Medtronic is replacing the affected batteries with new product and has implemented actions to improve control of the welding process.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it’s been fraught with problems.

Earlier in June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data and a new documentary called “The Human Trial” together illuminate the hard work, sacrifice, and slow, iterative progress in the long search for a biological cure for type 1 diabetes.

Opening in select theaters on June 24, the film was written by Los Angeles filmmaker Lisa Hepner, who has type 1 diabetes, and codirected by Ms. Hepner and her husband Guy Mossman, who also filmed it. The couple co-own a film production company.

Abramorama

“The Human Trial” follows the personal journeys of two of the first participants in ViaCyte’s early phase 2 trial of stem cell–derived islet cell transplants, as well as those of the investigators and Ms. Hepner herself, who narrates and appears in the film, interweaving her own experience with type 1 diabetes while acting as a “bridge” between the trial’s participants and scientists. The film spans 7 years of the trial.

The timing of the film’s opening happens to follow presentations at two major medical meetings in early June of more recent islet cell transplantation data from ViaCyte and two other companies, Sernova and Vertex. Each is taking a different practical approach, with the most effective and safe technique yet to be determined.

But all are pursuing the same goal: A biological “cure” for type 1 diabetes with the aim of restoring fully functioning islet cells that can produce insulin and keep blood sugar levels in target range. Ultimately, the hope is to eliminate the need for both exogenous insulin and immunosuppression for all people with type 1 diabetes.

“Cell therapy is an attempt to drastically and substantially change the paradigm of how we actually treat type 1 diabetes,” Manasi S. Jaiman, MD, pediatric endocrinologist and chief medical officer at ViaCyte, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Transplantation of cadaver-derived pancreatic islet cells to treat type 1 diabetes dates back more than 20 years to the landmark Edmonton Protocol, with many refinements since. About 1,500 recipients have received them, and roughly a quarter has maintained insulin independence after 10 years, Dr. Jaiman said.

More recently, islets derived from stem cells – either embryonic or autologous – have been used to address the supply and quality problems that arise from cadaveric (dead) donors.

Still, though, the need for lifelong immune suppression means the only current recipients are people with type 1 diabetes for whom the risk of diabetes outweighs that of immune suppression, such as those with hypoglycemic unawareness or extreme glucose swings.

Abramorama

Many research efforts are underway to counter the need for immune suppression by a variety of techniques including cell encapsulation or gene modification.

While the data thus far are encouraging, most of the reports align with what Ms. Hepner says in the film: “We all want stories with a beginning, middle, and end where all the loose pieces fit together. But clinical research is messy and hard. It doesn’t fit into a tidy headline, no matter how much you want it to.”
 

Companies use different approaches for transplanting islets

At ENDO 2022, Dr. Jaiman presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from ViaCyte’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line. The cells are housed in an open delivery device about the size of a standard bandage to allow direct vascularization and are implanted in a patient’s forearm. An earlier version of the device was used in the two patients in “The Human Trial.”

All three patients experienced improved blood glucose levels with lower daily insulin doses and a rise from undetectable C-peptide to levels above 0.3 ng/mL. Of the three, the best results were seen in a 52-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 36 years complicated by hypoglycemic unawareness. At 1-year post transplant, her hemoglobin A1c dropped from 7.4% to 6.9%, and time in range [of ideal blood glucose] from 55% to 94%, plus she had a reduction in daily exogenous insulin use of 70%. However, at 18 months her time-in-range had dropped to about 75%.

“We are watching very closely to see what this means,” Dr. Jaiman said.

Further optimization of the approach is planned. “We’re still waiting on the bulk of the data and analyzing it ... We do realize this is a journey but we’re very excited by where we are,” she enthused.

In February 2022, ViaCyte announced it had teamed up with CRISPR Therapeutics to develop an allogeneic, gene-edited stem cell-derived product designed to produce insulin while at the same time evading the immune system.

Preliminary data from another company, Sernova, using a pouch device were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Piotr J. Bachul, MD, of the Transplantation Institute at the University of Chicago.

The Sernova Cell Pouch System containing cadaver islets was successfully transplanted into the abdominal wall of six of seven patients. After waiting a month to allow for vascularization, the cells are then placed into the pouch (as opposed to ViaCyte’s method where they are implanted together). The first three patients achieved islet cell graft function – with positive C-peptide – for up to 1 year, although all also required supplemental transplants into the portal vein to achieve insulin independence.

In May 2022, Sernova announced a partnership with Evotec to develop a product that will combine induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based beta cells for use with the Cell Pouch System.

Clinical testing is scheduled to begin in 2024, a Sernova representative told this news organization.

And as reported earlier in June, findings from Vertex Pharmaceuticals showed success in two patients who received that company›s investigational allogeneic stem-cell derived islets (VX-880), with the first person completely insulin independent 9 months post transplant.

In contrast to the other two companies, Vertex’s approach is to transplant the cells directly to the hepatic portal vein rather than into a subcutaneous pouch.

“The only space that has ever worked efficiently for islets is the liver because they immediately get blood. ... The subcutaneous space is an interesting place, but the problem is it’s not very well vascularized,” James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who worked on the Vertex trials, told this news organization.

However, the Sernova representative countered: “With the Cell Pouch transplant, not only can surgeons avoid the risks associated with [hepatic] portal vein infusion – including immediate blood-mediated inflammatory reaction, which is known to kill a large proportion of infused islets – but also liver pathologies.”

Furthermore, the cells remaining in the pouch “may be entirely removed from the patient in the event of a subsequently detected cell quality issue,” which isn’t possible with cells delivered into the portal vein.

“I think it will be interesting how it plays out,” Dr. Markmann said, referring to the field as a whole.

‘The Human Trial’ spotlights the real people behind the data

“The Human Trial” ties together the lives of two young adult study participants: a mother named Maren Badger, who qualified for the study because she regularly experienced severe low blood sugar accompanied by seizures, and Greg Romero, a father who has sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and other complications, as well as financial hardship.

The film chronicles their experiences over 7 years after receiving the transplant. It’s not easy for either of them to undergo all the implantation and explantation procedures as well as cope with the uncertainty as to whether the transplanted cells are working.

At the same time, the researchers’ emotional and sometimes frustrating journey is shown, as are scenes following company executives to Saudi Arabia and Japan in their pursuit of trial funding.

Ms. Hepner herself is featured pursuing the film’s storyline by frequently questioning company executives, in person and virtually, as well as telling her own story.

A visit to the Banting House Historic Site in London, Ontario, with her young son gives Ms. Hepner the opportunity to explain that after Canadian surgeon Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for one dollar.

“One hundred years ago, insulin wasn’t a business. It was a medical breakthrough that saved millions of lives. When Banting accepted his Nobel [Prize], he famously said: ‘Insulin doesn’t belong to me, it belongs to the world.’ ... Now, there’s a $245 billion industry designed to manage our disease,” Ms. Hepner says in the film.

But, she adds: “There’s a catch-22: Biotech needs big pharma’s profits to fund clinical trials. Without that support the researchers wouldn’t have gotten this far. Like most relationships, it’s complicated.”

Nonetheless, the film ultimately uplifts. As one company executive says: “Data show the product is producing insulin in patients for the first time. ... This is a big deal. We know now that the cells work.

“We didn’t know that 5 years ago. All the pieces are there, it’s just a matter of completing the puzzle.”

The ViaCyte work presented by Dr. Jaiman received funding from the European Commission Horizon 2020, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the JDRF. Jaiman is an employee of ViaCyte. The Sernova work was funded by Sernova and JDRF. Dr. Markmann has reported serving on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and Qihan Biotech, and being a consultant for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Ms. Hepner and Mr. Mossman run LA-based Vox Pop Films, a production company specializing in nonfiction content and commercials. “The Human Trial” was made in collaboration with the nonprofit Beyond Type 1.

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

New data and a new documentary called “The Human Trial” together illuminate the hard work, sacrifice, and slow, iterative progress in the long search for a biological cure for type 1 diabetes.

Opening in select theaters on June 24, the film was written by Los Angeles filmmaker Lisa Hepner, who has type 1 diabetes, and codirected by Ms. Hepner and her husband Guy Mossman, who also filmed it. The couple co-own a film production company.

Abramorama

“The Human Trial” follows the personal journeys of two of the first participants in ViaCyte’s early phase 2 trial of stem cell–derived islet cell transplants, as well as those of the investigators and Ms. Hepner herself, who narrates and appears in the film, interweaving her own experience with type 1 diabetes while acting as a “bridge” between the trial’s participants and scientists. The film spans 7 years of the trial.

The timing of the film’s opening happens to follow presentations at two major medical meetings in early June of more recent islet cell transplantation data from ViaCyte and two other companies, Sernova and Vertex. Each is taking a different practical approach, with the most effective and safe technique yet to be determined.

But all are pursuing the same goal: A biological “cure” for type 1 diabetes with the aim of restoring fully functioning islet cells that can produce insulin and keep blood sugar levels in target range. Ultimately, the hope is to eliminate the need for both exogenous insulin and immunosuppression for all people with type 1 diabetes.

“Cell therapy is an attempt to drastically and substantially change the paradigm of how we actually treat type 1 diabetes,” Manasi S. Jaiman, MD, pediatric endocrinologist and chief medical officer at ViaCyte, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Transplantation of cadaver-derived pancreatic islet cells to treat type 1 diabetes dates back more than 20 years to the landmark Edmonton Protocol, with many refinements since. About 1,500 recipients have received them, and roughly a quarter has maintained insulin independence after 10 years, Dr. Jaiman said.

More recently, islets derived from stem cells – either embryonic or autologous – have been used to address the supply and quality problems that arise from cadaveric (dead) donors.

Still, though, the need for lifelong immune suppression means the only current recipients are people with type 1 diabetes for whom the risk of diabetes outweighs that of immune suppression, such as those with hypoglycemic unawareness or extreme glucose swings.

Abramorama

Many research efforts are underway to counter the need for immune suppression by a variety of techniques including cell encapsulation or gene modification.

While the data thus far are encouraging, most of the reports align with what Ms. Hepner says in the film: “We all want stories with a beginning, middle, and end where all the loose pieces fit together. But clinical research is messy and hard. It doesn’t fit into a tidy headline, no matter how much you want it to.”
 

Companies use different approaches for transplanting islets

At ENDO 2022, Dr. Jaiman presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from ViaCyte’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line. The cells are housed in an open delivery device about the size of a standard bandage to allow direct vascularization and are implanted in a patient’s forearm. An earlier version of the device was used in the two patients in “The Human Trial.”

All three patients experienced improved blood glucose levels with lower daily insulin doses and a rise from undetectable C-peptide to levels above 0.3 ng/mL. Of the three, the best results were seen in a 52-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 36 years complicated by hypoglycemic unawareness. At 1-year post transplant, her hemoglobin A1c dropped from 7.4% to 6.9%, and time in range [of ideal blood glucose] from 55% to 94%, plus she had a reduction in daily exogenous insulin use of 70%. However, at 18 months her time-in-range had dropped to about 75%.

“We are watching very closely to see what this means,” Dr. Jaiman said.

Further optimization of the approach is planned. “We’re still waiting on the bulk of the data and analyzing it ... We do realize this is a journey but we’re very excited by where we are,” she enthused.

In February 2022, ViaCyte announced it had teamed up with CRISPR Therapeutics to develop an allogeneic, gene-edited stem cell-derived product designed to produce insulin while at the same time evading the immune system.

Preliminary data from another company, Sernova, using a pouch device were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Piotr J. Bachul, MD, of the Transplantation Institute at the University of Chicago.

The Sernova Cell Pouch System containing cadaver islets was successfully transplanted into the abdominal wall of six of seven patients. After waiting a month to allow for vascularization, the cells are then placed into the pouch (as opposed to ViaCyte’s method where they are implanted together). The first three patients achieved islet cell graft function – with positive C-peptide – for up to 1 year, although all also required supplemental transplants into the portal vein to achieve insulin independence.

In May 2022, Sernova announced a partnership with Evotec to develop a product that will combine induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based beta cells for use with the Cell Pouch System.

Clinical testing is scheduled to begin in 2024, a Sernova representative told this news organization.

And as reported earlier in June, findings from Vertex Pharmaceuticals showed success in two patients who received that company›s investigational allogeneic stem-cell derived islets (VX-880), with the first person completely insulin independent 9 months post transplant.

In contrast to the other two companies, Vertex’s approach is to transplant the cells directly to the hepatic portal vein rather than into a subcutaneous pouch.

“The only space that has ever worked efficiently for islets is the liver because they immediately get blood. ... The subcutaneous space is an interesting place, but the problem is it’s not very well vascularized,” James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who worked on the Vertex trials, told this news organization.

However, the Sernova representative countered: “With the Cell Pouch transplant, not only can surgeons avoid the risks associated with [hepatic] portal vein infusion – including immediate blood-mediated inflammatory reaction, which is known to kill a large proportion of infused islets – but also liver pathologies.”

Furthermore, the cells remaining in the pouch “may be entirely removed from the patient in the event of a subsequently detected cell quality issue,” which isn’t possible with cells delivered into the portal vein.

“I think it will be interesting how it plays out,” Dr. Markmann said, referring to the field as a whole.

‘The Human Trial’ spotlights the real people behind the data

“The Human Trial” ties together the lives of two young adult study participants: a mother named Maren Badger, who qualified for the study because she regularly experienced severe low blood sugar accompanied by seizures, and Greg Romero, a father who has sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and other complications, as well as financial hardship.

The film chronicles their experiences over 7 years after receiving the transplant. It’s not easy for either of them to undergo all the implantation and explantation procedures as well as cope with the uncertainty as to whether the transplanted cells are working.

At the same time, the researchers’ emotional and sometimes frustrating journey is shown, as are scenes following company executives to Saudi Arabia and Japan in their pursuit of trial funding.

Ms. Hepner herself is featured pursuing the film’s storyline by frequently questioning company executives, in person and virtually, as well as telling her own story.

A visit to the Banting House Historic Site in London, Ontario, with her young son gives Ms. Hepner the opportunity to explain that after Canadian surgeon Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for one dollar.

“One hundred years ago, insulin wasn’t a business. It was a medical breakthrough that saved millions of lives. When Banting accepted his Nobel [Prize], he famously said: ‘Insulin doesn’t belong to me, it belongs to the world.’ ... Now, there’s a $245 billion industry designed to manage our disease,” Ms. Hepner says in the film.

But, she adds: “There’s a catch-22: Biotech needs big pharma’s profits to fund clinical trials. Without that support the researchers wouldn’t have gotten this far. Like most relationships, it’s complicated.”

Nonetheless, the film ultimately uplifts. As one company executive says: “Data show the product is producing insulin in patients for the first time. ... This is a big deal. We know now that the cells work.

“We didn’t know that 5 years ago. All the pieces are there, it’s just a matter of completing the puzzle.”

The ViaCyte work presented by Dr. Jaiman received funding from the European Commission Horizon 2020, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the JDRF. Jaiman is an employee of ViaCyte. The Sernova work was funded by Sernova and JDRF. Dr. Markmann has reported serving on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and Qihan Biotech, and being a consultant for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Ms. Hepner and Mr. Mossman run LA-based Vox Pop Films, a production company specializing in nonfiction content and commercials. “The Human Trial” was made in collaboration with the nonprofit Beyond Type 1.

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

New data and a new documentary called “The Human Trial” together illuminate the hard work, sacrifice, and slow, iterative progress in the long search for a biological cure for type 1 diabetes.

Opening in select theaters on June 24, the film was written by Los Angeles filmmaker Lisa Hepner, who has type 1 diabetes, and codirected by Ms. Hepner and her husband Guy Mossman, who also filmed it. The couple co-own a film production company.

Abramorama

“The Human Trial” follows the personal journeys of two of the first participants in ViaCyte’s early phase 2 trial of stem cell–derived islet cell transplants, as well as those of the investigators and Ms. Hepner herself, who narrates and appears in the film, interweaving her own experience with type 1 diabetes while acting as a “bridge” between the trial’s participants and scientists. The film spans 7 years of the trial.

The timing of the film’s opening happens to follow presentations at two major medical meetings in early June of more recent islet cell transplantation data from ViaCyte and two other companies, Sernova and Vertex. Each is taking a different practical approach, with the most effective and safe technique yet to be determined.

But all are pursuing the same goal: A biological “cure” for type 1 diabetes with the aim of restoring fully functioning islet cells that can produce insulin and keep blood sugar levels in target range. Ultimately, the hope is to eliminate the need for both exogenous insulin and immunosuppression for all people with type 1 diabetes.

“Cell therapy is an attempt to drastically and substantially change the paradigm of how we actually treat type 1 diabetes,” Manasi S. Jaiman, MD, pediatric endocrinologist and chief medical officer at ViaCyte, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Transplantation of cadaver-derived pancreatic islet cells to treat type 1 diabetes dates back more than 20 years to the landmark Edmonton Protocol, with many refinements since. About 1,500 recipients have received them, and roughly a quarter has maintained insulin independence after 10 years, Dr. Jaiman said.

More recently, islets derived from stem cells – either embryonic or autologous – have been used to address the supply and quality problems that arise from cadaveric (dead) donors.

Still, though, the need for lifelong immune suppression means the only current recipients are people with type 1 diabetes for whom the risk of diabetes outweighs that of immune suppression, such as those with hypoglycemic unawareness or extreme glucose swings.

Abramorama

Many research efforts are underway to counter the need for immune suppression by a variety of techniques including cell encapsulation or gene modification.

While the data thus far are encouraging, most of the reports align with what Ms. Hepner says in the film: “We all want stories with a beginning, middle, and end where all the loose pieces fit together. But clinical research is messy and hard. It doesn’t fit into a tidy headline, no matter how much you want it to.”
 

Companies use different approaches for transplanting islets

At ENDO 2022, Dr. Jaiman presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from ViaCyte’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line. The cells are housed in an open delivery device about the size of a standard bandage to allow direct vascularization and are implanted in a patient’s forearm. An earlier version of the device was used in the two patients in “The Human Trial.”

All three patients experienced improved blood glucose levels with lower daily insulin doses and a rise from undetectable C-peptide to levels above 0.3 ng/mL. Of the three, the best results were seen in a 52-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 36 years complicated by hypoglycemic unawareness. At 1-year post transplant, her hemoglobin A1c dropped from 7.4% to 6.9%, and time in range [of ideal blood glucose] from 55% to 94%, plus she had a reduction in daily exogenous insulin use of 70%. However, at 18 months her time-in-range had dropped to about 75%.

“We are watching very closely to see what this means,” Dr. Jaiman said.

Further optimization of the approach is planned. “We’re still waiting on the bulk of the data and analyzing it ... We do realize this is a journey but we’re very excited by where we are,” she enthused.

In February 2022, ViaCyte announced it had teamed up with CRISPR Therapeutics to develop an allogeneic, gene-edited stem cell-derived product designed to produce insulin while at the same time evading the immune system.

Preliminary data from another company, Sernova, using a pouch device were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Piotr J. Bachul, MD, of the Transplantation Institute at the University of Chicago.

The Sernova Cell Pouch System containing cadaver islets was successfully transplanted into the abdominal wall of six of seven patients. After waiting a month to allow for vascularization, the cells are then placed into the pouch (as opposed to ViaCyte’s method where they are implanted together). The first three patients achieved islet cell graft function – with positive C-peptide – for up to 1 year, although all also required supplemental transplants into the portal vein to achieve insulin independence.

In May 2022, Sernova announced a partnership with Evotec to develop a product that will combine induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based beta cells for use with the Cell Pouch System.

Clinical testing is scheduled to begin in 2024, a Sernova representative told this news organization.

And as reported earlier in June, findings from Vertex Pharmaceuticals showed success in two patients who received that company›s investigational allogeneic stem-cell derived islets (VX-880), with the first person completely insulin independent 9 months post transplant.

In contrast to the other two companies, Vertex’s approach is to transplant the cells directly to the hepatic portal vein rather than into a subcutaneous pouch.

“The only space that has ever worked efficiently for islets is the liver because they immediately get blood. ... The subcutaneous space is an interesting place, but the problem is it’s not very well vascularized,” James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who worked on the Vertex trials, told this news organization.

However, the Sernova representative countered: “With the Cell Pouch transplant, not only can surgeons avoid the risks associated with [hepatic] portal vein infusion – including immediate blood-mediated inflammatory reaction, which is known to kill a large proportion of infused islets – but also liver pathologies.”

Furthermore, the cells remaining in the pouch “may be entirely removed from the patient in the event of a subsequently detected cell quality issue,” which isn’t possible with cells delivered into the portal vein.

“I think it will be interesting how it plays out,” Dr. Markmann said, referring to the field as a whole.

‘The Human Trial’ spotlights the real people behind the data

“The Human Trial” ties together the lives of two young adult study participants: a mother named Maren Badger, who qualified for the study because she regularly experienced severe low blood sugar accompanied by seizures, and Greg Romero, a father who has sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and other complications, as well as financial hardship.

The film chronicles their experiences over 7 years after receiving the transplant. It’s not easy for either of them to undergo all the implantation and explantation procedures as well as cope with the uncertainty as to whether the transplanted cells are working.

At the same time, the researchers’ emotional and sometimes frustrating journey is shown, as are scenes following company executives to Saudi Arabia and Japan in their pursuit of trial funding.

Ms. Hepner herself is featured pursuing the film’s storyline by frequently questioning company executives, in person and virtually, as well as telling her own story.

A visit to the Banting House Historic Site in London, Ontario, with her young son gives Ms. Hepner the opportunity to explain that after Canadian surgeon Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for one dollar.

“One hundred years ago, insulin wasn’t a business. It was a medical breakthrough that saved millions of lives. When Banting accepted his Nobel [Prize], he famously said: ‘Insulin doesn’t belong to me, it belongs to the world.’ ... Now, there’s a $245 billion industry designed to manage our disease,” Ms. Hepner says in the film.

But, she adds: “There’s a catch-22: Biotech needs big pharma’s profits to fund clinical trials. Without that support the researchers wouldn’t have gotten this far. Like most relationships, it’s complicated.”

Nonetheless, the film ultimately uplifts. As one company executive says: “Data show the product is producing insulin in patients for the first time. ... This is a big deal. We know now that the cells work.

“We didn’t know that 5 years ago. All the pieces are there, it’s just a matter of completing the puzzle.”

The ViaCyte work presented by Dr. Jaiman received funding from the European Commission Horizon 2020, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the JDRF. Jaiman is an employee of ViaCyte. The Sernova work was funded by Sernova and JDRF. Dr. Markmann has reported serving on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and Qihan Biotech, and being a consultant for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Ms. Hepner and Mr. Mossman run LA-based Vox Pop Films, a production company specializing in nonfiction content and commercials. “The Human Trial” was made in collaboration with the nonprofit Beyond Type 1.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.