MDedge Endocrinology

N95 masks began arriving at grocery stores and pharmacies on. Jan. 28, and consumers will be able to pick them up for free while supplies last.

The first batches are expected to arrive in some stores on Jan. 27, and many locations will begin offering them to customers on Jan. 28, according to NPR.

Meijer, which operates more than 250 groceries and pharmacies throughout the Midwest, has received about 3 million masks. Customers can pick up masks from the greeter stand at the store entrance.

More than 2,200 Kroger stores with pharmacies will give out free masks, with the first shipment expected to arrive on Jan. 27, a spokeswoman told NPR.

Walgreens will likely begin offering masks in some stores on Jan. 28, which will continue “on a rolling basis in the days and weeks following,” a spokesman told NPR.

Masks should arrive by Jan. 28 at Southeastern Grocers locations with in-store pharmacies, including Fresco y Mas, Harveys, and Winn-Dixie, according to CNN.

Hy-Vee received and began giving out masks on Jan. 21, and most stores with pharmacies were giving them out Jan. 26, according to Today.

CVS Pharmacy locations will offer free masks as early as Jan. 27, a spokesman told Today. That will include CVS Pharmacy locations inside Target and Schnucks.

Albertsons is “currently working to finalize details regarding inventory and distribution,” the chain told Today.

Rite Aid will have free masks in some stores at the end of the week, with all stores receiving them by early February, Today reported.

Walmart and Sam’s Club will offer free masks late next week at the earliest, according to NBC Chicago.

The Biden administration is sending out 400 million N95 masks from the Strategic National Stockpile. Each person can take up to three free masks, if they’re available, the Department of Health and Human Services has said.

The distribution of masks is meant to align with the CDC’s latest recommendation to wear an N95 or KN95 mask to prevent the spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant. When worn correctly over the mouth and nose, the high-filtration masks are made to filter out 95% or more of airborne particles.

The Biden administration is also sending masks to community health centers and COVID-19 test kits directly to Americans. The programs are ramping up now and should be fully running by early February, NPR reported.

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

N95 masks began arriving at grocery stores and pharmacies on. Jan. 28, and consumers will be able to pick them up for free while supplies last.

The first batches are expected to arrive in some stores on Jan. 27, and many locations will begin offering them to customers on Jan. 28, according to NPR.

Meijer, which operates more than 250 groceries and pharmacies throughout the Midwest, has received about 3 million masks. Customers can pick up masks from the greeter stand at the store entrance.

More than 2,200 Kroger stores with pharmacies will give out free masks, with the first shipment expected to arrive on Jan. 27, a spokeswoman told NPR.

Walgreens will likely begin offering masks in some stores on Jan. 28, which will continue “on a rolling basis in the days and weeks following,” a spokesman told NPR.

Masks should arrive by Jan. 28 at Southeastern Grocers locations with in-store pharmacies, including Fresco y Mas, Harveys, and Winn-Dixie, according to CNN.

Hy-Vee received and began giving out masks on Jan. 21, and most stores with pharmacies were giving them out Jan. 26, according to Today.

CVS Pharmacy locations will offer free masks as early as Jan. 27, a spokesman told Today. That will include CVS Pharmacy locations inside Target and Schnucks.

Albertsons is “currently working to finalize details regarding inventory and distribution,” the chain told Today.

Rite Aid will have free masks in some stores at the end of the week, with all stores receiving them by early February, Today reported.

Walmart and Sam’s Club will offer free masks late next week at the earliest, according to NBC Chicago.

The Biden administration is sending out 400 million N95 masks from the Strategic National Stockpile. Each person can take up to three free masks, if they’re available, the Department of Health and Human Services has said.

The distribution of masks is meant to align with the CDC’s latest recommendation to wear an N95 or KN95 mask to prevent the spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant. When worn correctly over the mouth and nose, the high-filtration masks are made to filter out 95% or more of airborne particles.

The Biden administration is also sending masks to community health centers and COVID-19 test kits directly to Americans. The programs are ramping up now and should be fully running by early February, NPR reported.

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

N95 masks began arriving at grocery stores and pharmacies on. Jan. 28, and consumers will be able to pick them up for free while supplies last.

The first batches are expected to arrive in some stores on Jan. 27, and many locations will begin offering them to customers on Jan. 28, according to NPR.

Meijer, which operates more than 250 groceries and pharmacies throughout the Midwest, has received about 3 million masks. Customers can pick up masks from the greeter stand at the store entrance.

More than 2,200 Kroger stores with pharmacies will give out free masks, with the first shipment expected to arrive on Jan. 27, a spokeswoman told NPR.

Walgreens will likely begin offering masks in some stores on Jan. 28, which will continue “on a rolling basis in the days and weeks following,” a spokesman told NPR.

Masks should arrive by Jan. 28 at Southeastern Grocers locations with in-store pharmacies, including Fresco y Mas, Harveys, and Winn-Dixie, according to CNN.

Hy-Vee received and began giving out masks on Jan. 21, and most stores with pharmacies were giving them out Jan. 26, according to Today.

CVS Pharmacy locations will offer free masks as early as Jan. 27, a spokesman told Today. That will include CVS Pharmacy locations inside Target and Schnucks.

Albertsons is “currently working to finalize details regarding inventory and distribution,” the chain told Today.

Rite Aid will have free masks in some stores at the end of the week, with all stores receiving them by early February, Today reported.

Walmart and Sam’s Club will offer free masks late next week at the earliest, according to NBC Chicago.

The Biden administration is sending out 400 million N95 masks from the Strategic National Stockpile. Each person can take up to three free masks, if they’re available, the Department of Health and Human Services has said.

The distribution of masks is meant to align with the CDC’s latest recommendation to wear an N95 or KN95 mask to prevent the spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant. When worn correctly over the mouth and nose, the high-filtration masks are made to filter out 95% or more of airborne particles.

The Biden administration is also sending masks to community health centers and COVID-19 test kits directly to Americans. The programs are ramping up now and should be fully running by early February, NPR reported.

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

Here we are. Again. It’s cold and it’s gray. The sun rises late and sets early, so that it feels like midnight by 8 p.m. Indoor venues are risky with the highly contagious Omicron variant, and I feel like we are all pushing the replay button on 2021’s miserable winter.

In some ways, it’s worse: In 2021 we had the hope that vaccines would pull us out of the pandemic and we had guidance on all that we should not be doing. In January, we were gaming the various Internet sites to get a coveted vaccine for ourselves or our family and friends, then lining up to get jabbed. We did not yet know that it wouldn’t be enough – that we’d need boosters, that Delta and Omicron would defy the vaccines. Yes, the vaccines work miracles to prevent severe disease and death, but the worry of passing the virus to someone who is vulnerable or unvaccinated(!), or both, remains – and now we can wonder how we’ll ever get out of this mess with hopeful talk of an endemic, while we wait on the next variant. I like certainty, and this pandemic is one big screaming reminder that certainty about anything is just a pleasant notion, death and taxes excluded, of course.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Kris Lukish, vice president of human resources at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, started an update to the hospital employees with: “As we begin 2022, it feels like we are experiencing dejà vu, or ‘Groundhog Day,’ or ‘50 First Dates.’ In ‘50 First Dates,’ Drew Barrymore wakes up each day reliving one specific day. It never changes. I realize our world may seem a little like that right now. We thought we’d turned a corner with COVID, and instead we saw a rapid rise in cases and hospitalizations due to the Omicron variant, higher than in previous surges.”

In 2021, many of us skipped holiday travel and ate outdoors. My morning coffee group moved to Zoom and it wasn’t until late spring, when community rates of COVID nose-dived, that I began seeing patients in my office for the first time in over a year. Since many of my patients are over 60, I tested myself with a home antigen test before going into the office. I changed my schedule so sessions began on the half-hour to be sure the suite’s waiting room would be empty, and I purchased an air purifier, cracked the window open, and figured everyone was as safe as we could reasonably be.

By the first Monday in January 2022, the positivity rate in Maryland was just shy of 30%. Twitter circulated anecdotes about false negatives with the home antigen test kits, and I decided it was safest to return to all-virtual appointments.

Mona Masood, DO, is cofounder of the Physician Support Line, a call-in service for doctors that started in March 2020. She has noted a change in the problems physicians face.

“We’re seeing a lot of empathy fatigue,” Dr. Masood said. “It’s not unexpected with a prolonged situation like this – the trauma has doctors in survival mode and they need to be present for themselves, their families, and their patients. People are emotionally drained, and we’re stretching them to the limit. Now at the front lines, doctors are getting a lot of backlash. There are the conspiracy theories, and people who challenge their knowledge and training and it leads them to ask if they should be doing this work. Some callers are thinking about leaving medicine and asking: ‘Is this what I signed up for?’ and these are large decisions that are being made in a specific context.

“The other thing we’re hearing is from trainees – residents and fellows – who are expected to carry a lot of work on the COVID units. Some are being told that they can’t graduate because they haven’t finished their other training requirements. This type of systemic issue produces moral injury.”

Dr. Masood talked about what running the support line has been like for her. “I know people want to give more in a catastrophe, and I was realistic that the enthusiasm might die off. I would go as long as psychiatrists volunteer, and the most incredible thing is that it hasn’t stopped. Some of the original people are no longer with us, but others have come aboard, and it’s been incredible to be a part of this.”

In her Jan. 26, 2022, newsletter, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, tried to be reassuring about the future. “In order to know how this will end, we need to look at how other pandemics ended,” Dr. Jetelina wrote. “First, recognize the last part of that sentence ... pandemics end. Every epi curve comes down. This pandemic will end, too. Hold that fact close to you.”

She wrote about the three ways that pandemics end. The SARS pandemic of 2002 lasted 1.5 years as public health measures were effective, in large part because the disease was spread only by symptomatic patients. Vaccines offer a second way to end pandemics, as they have for polio and smallpox. “If the globe works together, we could possibly eradicate SARS-CoV-2 with vaccines. [Now that we have numerous animal reservoirs, though, this is close to impossible.]”

Finally, Dr. Jetelina noted that the 1918 flu changed from a pandemic situation to being endemic. “Over time, the virus attenuated, it became less severe.” Society acclimates to a virus with a low mortality rate. “The vast majority of scientists think an endemic state is the future of SARS-CoV-2. I agree.” And she goes on to define endemic as a steady state, but not the absence of suffering. She likens it to malaria and tuberculosis, illnesses with high global mortality.

“An endemic will come without an announcement or headlines, we won’t know we’re there until well after we’ve arrived.” She wrote of the uncertainty that faces us moving forward: We don’t know how much, or how long, immunity from Omicron infections will last, or if future variants will cause more or less severe disease. She casted her vote for global vaccinations, boosters, masks, better ventilation, communication, empathy, and tolerance to end the pandemic.

In Maryland, hospitalizations and positivity are starting to decline from the postholiday surge. I have figured out that I am not good at predicting what will happen next, and the experts don’t seem to be much better. I’d like a headline ending, the kind we looked to be heading toward last June.

I’ve told my patients who want to come in person that I will reassess in March. We have written our own rules, and mine are somewhere in the middle – I don’t go to public indoor spaces unmasked, but I do see vaccinated family and friends in our homes without masks. I don’t want to be responsible for transmitting a potentially fatal illness to a vulnerable patient. Honestly, this makes no sense, but since there is a video option, I feel I should not risk passing a potentially lethal virus to my patients. I just hope I’m not writing this same article again in January 2023.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

Here we are. Again. It’s cold and it’s gray. The sun rises late and sets early, so that it feels like midnight by 8 p.m. Indoor venues are risky with the highly contagious Omicron variant, and I feel like we are all pushing the replay button on 2021’s miserable winter.

In some ways, it’s worse: In 2021 we had the hope that vaccines would pull us out of the pandemic and we had guidance on all that we should not be doing. In January, we were gaming the various Internet sites to get a coveted vaccine for ourselves or our family and friends, then lining up to get jabbed. We did not yet know that it wouldn’t be enough – that we’d need boosters, that Delta and Omicron would defy the vaccines. Yes, the vaccines work miracles to prevent severe disease and death, but the worry of passing the virus to someone who is vulnerable or unvaccinated(!), or both, remains – and now we can wonder how we’ll ever get out of this mess with hopeful talk of an endemic, while we wait on the next variant. I like certainty, and this pandemic is one big screaming reminder that certainty about anything is just a pleasant notion, death and taxes excluded, of course.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Kris Lukish, vice president of human resources at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, started an update to the hospital employees with: “As we begin 2022, it feels like we are experiencing dejà vu, or ‘Groundhog Day,’ or ‘50 First Dates.’ In ‘50 First Dates,’ Drew Barrymore wakes up each day reliving one specific day. It never changes. I realize our world may seem a little like that right now. We thought we’d turned a corner with COVID, and instead we saw a rapid rise in cases and hospitalizations due to the Omicron variant, higher than in previous surges.”

In 2021, many of us skipped holiday travel and ate outdoors. My morning coffee group moved to Zoom and it wasn’t until late spring, when community rates of COVID nose-dived, that I began seeing patients in my office for the first time in over a year. Since many of my patients are over 60, I tested myself with a home antigen test before going into the office. I changed my schedule so sessions began on the half-hour to be sure the suite’s waiting room would be empty, and I purchased an air purifier, cracked the window open, and figured everyone was as safe as we could reasonably be.

By the first Monday in January 2022, the positivity rate in Maryland was just shy of 30%. Twitter circulated anecdotes about false negatives with the home antigen test kits, and I decided it was safest to return to all-virtual appointments.

Mona Masood, DO, is cofounder of the Physician Support Line, a call-in service for doctors that started in March 2020. She has noted a change in the problems physicians face.

“We’re seeing a lot of empathy fatigue,” Dr. Masood said. “It’s not unexpected with a prolonged situation like this – the trauma has doctors in survival mode and they need to be present for themselves, their families, and their patients. People are emotionally drained, and we’re stretching them to the limit. Now at the front lines, doctors are getting a lot of backlash. There are the conspiracy theories, and people who challenge their knowledge and training and it leads them to ask if they should be doing this work. Some callers are thinking about leaving medicine and asking: ‘Is this what I signed up for?’ and these are large decisions that are being made in a specific context.

“The other thing we’re hearing is from trainees – residents and fellows – who are expected to carry a lot of work on the COVID units. Some are being told that they can’t graduate because they haven’t finished their other training requirements. This type of systemic issue produces moral injury.”

Dr. Masood talked about what running the support line has been like for her. “I know people want to give more in a catastrophe, and I was realistic that the enthusiasm might die off. I would go as long as psychiatrists volunteer, and the most incredible thing is that it hasn’t stopped. Some of the original people are no longer with us, but others have come aboard, and it’s been incredible to be a part of this.”

In her Jan. 26, 2022, newsletter, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, tried to be reassuring about the future. “In order to know how this will end, we need to look at how other pandemics ended,” Dr. Jetelina wrote. “First, recognize the last part of that sentence ... pandemics end. Every epi curve comes down. This pandemic will end, too. Hold that fact close to you.”

She wrote about the three ways that pandemics end. The SARS pandemic of 2002 lasted 1.5 years as public health measures were effective, in large part because the disease was spread only by symptomatic patients. Vaccines offer a second way to end pandemics, as they have for polio and smallpox. “If the globe works together, we could possibly eradicate SARS-CoV-2 with vaccines. [Now that we have numerous animal reservoirs, though, this is close to impossible.]”

Finally, Dr. Jetelina noted that the 1918 flu changed from a pandemic situation to being endemic. “Over time, the virus attenuated, it became less severe.” Society acclimates to a virus with a low mortality rate. “The vast majority of scientists think an endemic state is the future of SARS-CoV-2. I agree.” And she goes on to define endemic as a steady state, but not the absence of suffering. She likens it to malaria and tuberculosis, illnesses with high global mortality.

“An endemic will come without an announcement or headlines, we won’t know we’re there until well after we’ve arrived.” She wrote of the uncertainty that faces us moving forward: We don’t know how much, or how long, immunity from Omicron infections will last, or if future variants will cause more or less severe disease. She casted her vote for global vaccinations, boosters, masks, better ventilation, communication, empathy, and tolerance to end the pandemic.

In Maryland, hospitalizations and positivity are starting to decline from the postholiday surge. I have figured out that I am not good at predicting what will happen next, and the experts don’t seem to be much better. I’d like a headline ending, the kind we looked to be heading toward last June.

I’ve told my patients who want to come in person that I will reassess in March. We have written our own rules, and mine are somewhere in the middle – I don’t go to public indoor spaces unmasked, but I do see vaccinated family and friends in our homes without masks. I don’t want to be responsible for transmitting a potentially fatal illness to a vulnerable patient. Honestly, this makes no sense, but since there is a video option, I feel I should not risk passing a potentially lethal virus to my patients. I just hope I’m not writing this same article again in January 2023.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

Here we are. Again. It’s cold and it’s gray. The sun rises late and sets early, so that it feels like midnight by 8 p.m. Indoor venues are risky with the highly contagious Omicron variant, and I feel like we are all pushing the replay button on 2021’s miserable winter.

In some ways, it’s worse: In 2021 we had the hope that vaccines would pull us out of the pandemic and we had guidance on all that we should not be doing. In January, we were gaming the various Internet sites to get a coveted vaccine for ourselves or our family and friends, then lining up to get jabbed. We did not yet know that it wouldn’t be enough – that we’d need boosters, that Delta and Omicron would defy the vaccines. Yes, the vaccines work miracles to prevent severe disease and death, but the worry of passing the virus to someone who is vulnerable or unvaccinated(!), or both, remains – and now we can wonder how we’ll ever get out of this mess with hopeful talk of an endemic, while we wait on the next variant. I like certainty, and this pandemic is one big screaming reminder that certainty about anything is just a pleasant notion, death and taxes excluded, of course.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Kris Lukish, vice president of human resources at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, started an update to the hospital employees with: “As we begin 2022, it feels like we are experiencing dejà vu, or ‘Groundhog Day,’ or ‘50 First Dates.’ In ‘50 First Dates,’ Drew Barrymore wakes up each day reliving one specific day. It never changes. I realize our world may seem a little like that right now. We thought we’d turned a corner with COVID, and instead we saw a rapid rise in cases and hospitalizations due to the Omicron variant, higher than in previous surges.”

In 2021, many of us skipped holiday travel and ate outdoors. My morning coffee group moved to Zoom and it wasn’t until late spring, when community rates of COVID nose-dived, that I began seeing patients in my office for the first time in over a year. Since many of my patients are over 60, I tested myself with a home antigen test before going into the office. I changed my schedule so sessions began on the half-hour to be sure the suite’s waiting room would be empty, and I purchased an air purifier, cracked the window open, and figured everyone was as safe as we could reasonably be.

By the first Monday in January 2022, the positivity rate in Maryland was just shy of 30%. Twitter circulated anecdotes about false negatives with the home antigen test kits, and I decided it was safest to return to all-virtual appointments.

Mona Masood, DO, is cofounder of the Physician Support Line, a call-in service for doctors that started in March 2020. She has noted a change in the problems physicians face.

“We’re seeing a lot of empathy fatigue,” Dr. Masood said. “It’s not unexpected with a prolonged situation like this – the trauma has doctors in survival mode and they need to be present for themselves, their families, and their patients. People are emotionally drained, and we’re stretching them to the limit. Now at the front lines, doctors are getting a lot of backlash. There are the conspiracy theories, and people who challenge their knowledge and training and it leads them to ask if they should be doing this work. Some callers are thinking about leaving medicine and asking: ‘Is this what I signed up for?’ and these are large decisions that are being made in a specific context.

“The other thing we’re hearing is from trainees – residents and fellows – who are expected to carry a lot of work on the COVID units. Some are being told that they can’t graduate because they haven’t finished their other training requirements. This type of systemic issue produces moral injury.”

Dr. Masood talked about what running the support line has been like for her. “I know people want to give more in a catastrophe, and I was realistic that the enthusiasm might die off. I would go as long as psychiatrists volunteer, and the most incredible thing is that it hasn’t stopped. Some of the original people are no longer with us, but others have come aboard, and it’s been incredible to be a part of this.”

In her Jan. 26, 2022, newsletter, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, tried to be reassuring about the future. “In order to know how this will end, we need to look at how other pandemics ended,” Dr. Jetelina wrote. “First, recognize the last part of that sentence ... pandemics end. Every epi curve comes down. This pandemic will end, too. Hold that fact close to you.”

She wrote about the three ways that pandemics end. The SARS pandemic of 2002 lasted 1.5 years as public health measures were effective, in large part because the disease was spread only by symptomatic patients. Vaccines offer a second way to end pandemics, as they have for polio and smallpox. “If the globe works together, we could possibly eradicate SARS-CoV-2 with vaccines. [Now that we have numerous animal reservoirs, though, this is close to impossible.]”

Finally, Dr. Jetelina noted that the 1918 flu changed from a pandemic situation to being endemic. “Over time, the virus attenuated, it became less severe.” Society acclimates to a virus with a low mortality rate. “The vast majority of scientists think an endemic state is the future of SARS-CoV-2. I agree.” And she goes on to define endemic as a steady state, but not the absence of suffering. She likens it to malaria and tuberculosis, illnesses with high global mortality.

“An endemic will come without an announcement or headlines, we won’t know we’re there until well after we’ve arrived.” She wrote of the uncertainty that faces us moving forward: We don’t know how much, or how long, immunity from Omicron infections will last, or if future variants will cause more or less severe disease. She casted her vote for global vaccinations, boosters, masks, better ventilation, communication, empathy, and tolerance to end the pandemic.

In Maryland, hospitalizations and positivity are starting to decline from the postholiday surge. I have figured out that I am not good at predicting what will happen next, and the experts don’t seem to be much better. I’d like a headline ending, the kind we looked to be heading toward last June.

I’ve told my patients who want to come in person that I will reassess in March. We have written our own rules, and mine are somewhere in the middle – I don’t go to public indoor spaces unmasked, but I do see vaccinated family and friends in our homes without masks. I don’t want to be responsible for transmitting a potentially fatal illness to a vulnerable patient. Honestly, this makes no sense, but since there is a video option, I feel I should not risk passing a potentially lethal virus to my patients. I just hope I’m not writing this same article again in January 2023.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

Over the period of 1 year, secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks demonstrated superior efficacy compared with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks in overweight patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, results from a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial showed.

The more frequent dosing was also associated with comparable safety, consistent with the established secukinumab safety profile.

“Weight may have an impact on pharmacokinetics and, therefore, on the clinical outcome of biologic treatment for psoriasis,” Matthias Augustin, MD, and colleagues wrote in the study, published recently in the British Journal of Dermatology. “Dose optimization may be highly beneficial for patients with higher body weight,” they noted, adding that their study supports previous study findings and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling data, showing that secukinumab dosed every 2 weeks “leads to a clinically and statistically significant advantage in PASI 90 response,” compared with standard dosing every 4 weeks in patients who weight 90 kg (about 198 pounds) or more, after 16 weeks of treatment, which was maintained until week 52.

For the study, Dr. Augustin, of the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 331 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis who weighed 90 kg or more to receive secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, or secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The mean age of the patients was 47 years, 75% were male, 92% were White, and their mean body weight was 111.1 kg, with a mean body mass index of 36.1 kg/m².

Patients who did not achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at week 16 on the monthly regimen (Q4W) either remained on that regimen or were up-titrated to dosing every 2 weeks (Q2W). Of the 331 patients, 165 received Q2W dosing and 166 received Q4W dosing. The researchers found that, at 16 weeks, patients in the Q2W dosing group had significantly higher PASI 90 responses, compared with those in the Q4W group (73.2% vs. 55.5%, respectively; P = .0003; odds ratio estimate, 2.3).

At 52 weeks, a greater proportion of patients in the Q2W group maintained responses to several outcome measures, compared with those in the Q4W group, including PASI 75 (88.9% vs. 74.8%), PASI 90 (76.4% vs. 52.4%), and PASI 100 (46.7% vs. 27.3%) scores; Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (75.9% vs. 55.6%); and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of 0 or 1 (66.1% vs. 48.8%).

In addition, those who had not had a PASI 90 response at week 16 who were up-titrated to Q2W dosing demonstrated higher efficacy responses at week 32, compared with those who remained on the Q4W regimen, with PASI 90 scores of 37.7% versus 16.5%, respectively.

Both regimens were well-tolerated, consistent with the known secukinumab safety profile; safety was comparable in the treatment arms, and there was “no clear dose-response relationship seen” for the incidence of overall adverse events, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation of the study treatment, “or AEs related to the identified risks” of infections, hypersensitivity, neutropenia and potential risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, the authors wrote.

“Despite more frequent dosing, the incidence of Candida infections was numerically lower in the Q2W group versus the Q4W group,” although there were not many cases, three patients versus six patients, respectively.

 

Need for individualized treatment

“Despite a decades-long revolution in development of highly efficacious biologic treatments for psoriasis, we are only in the early stages of developing personalized clinical approaches,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “The need for individualized treatment in psoriasis is very real; not every patient may respond to therapy in the same way. Obesity is one important comorbidity of psoriasis, and increased body mass index may be associated with variable treatment outcomes with systemic therapy.”

The data from this study, he added, “suggest that dose optimization may be an important strategy to enhance psoriasis clearance in patients with suboptimal treatment outcomes on standard dosing, including those with increased weight. Future studies should examine optimal regimen of biologic therapy across a variety of patient factors.”

The study was funded by Novartis, the manufacturer of secukinumab (Cosentyx); several authors were company employees. Dr. Augustin disclosed that he has served as a consultant for or has been a paid speaker for clinical trials sponsored by companies that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of psoriasis, including AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Medac, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Over the period of 1 year, secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks demonstrated superior efficacy compared with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks in overweight patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, results from a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial showed.

The more frequent dosing was also associated with comparable safety, consistent with the established secukinumab safety profile.

“Weight may have an impact on pharmacokinetics and, therefore, on the clinical outcome of biologic treatment for psoriasis,” Matthias Augustin, MD, and colleagues wrote in the study, published recently in the British Journal of Dermatology. “Dose optimization may be highly beneficial for patients with higher body weight,” they noted, adding that their study supports previous study findings and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling data, showing that secukinumab dosed every 2 weeks “leads to a clinically and statistically significant advantage in PASI 90 response,” compared with standard dosing every 4 weeks in patients who weight 90 kg (about 198 pounds) or more, after 16 weeks of treatment, which was maintained until week 52.

For the study, Dr. Augustin, of the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 331 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis who weighed 90 kg or more to receive secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, or secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The mean age of the patients was 47 years, 75% were male, 92% were White, and their mean body weight was 111.1 kg, with a mean body mass index of 36.1 kg/m².

Patients who did not achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at week 16 on the monthly regimen (Q4W) either remained on that regimen or were up-titrated to dosing every 2 weeks (Q2W). Of the 331 patients, 165 received Q2W dosing and 166 received Q4W dosing. The researchers found that, at 16 weeks, patients in the Q2W dosing group had significantly higher PASI 90 responses, compared with those in the Q4W group (73.2% vs. 55.5%, respectively; P = .0003; odds ratio estimate, 2.3).

At 52 weeks, a greater proportion of patients in the Q2W group maintained responses to several outcome measures, compared with those in the Q4W group, including PASI 75 (88.9% vs. 74.8%), PASI 90 (76.4% vs. 52.4%), and PASI 100 (46.7% vs. 27.3%) scores; Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (75.9% vs. 55.6%); and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of 0 or 1 (66.1% vs. 48.8%).

In addition, those who had not had a PASI 90 response at week 16 who were up-titrated to Q2W dosing demonstrated higher efficacy responses at week 32, compared with those who remained on the Q4W regimen, with PASI 90 scores of 37.7% versus 16.5%, respectively.

Both regimens were well-tolerated, consistent with the known secukinumab safety profile; safety was comparable in the treatment arms, and there was “no clear dose-response relationship seen” for the incidence of overall adverse events, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation of the study treatment, “or AEs related to the identified risks” of infections, hypersensitivity, neutropenia and potential risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, the authors wrote.

“Despite more frequent dosing, the incidence of Candida infections was numerically lower in the Q2W group versus the Q4W group,” although there were not many cases, three patients versus six patients, respectively.

 

Need for individualized treatment

“Despite a decades-long revolution in development of highly efficacious biologic treatments for psoriasis, we are only in the early stages of developing personalized clinical approaches,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “The need for individualized treatment in psoriasis is very real; not every patient may respond to therapy in the same way. Obesity is one important comorbidity of psoriasis, and increased body mass index may be associated with variable treatment outcomes with systemic therapy.”

The data from this study, he added, “suggest that dose optimization may be an important strategy to enhance psoriasis clearance in patients with suboptimal treatment outcomes on standard dosing, including those with increased weight. Future studies should examine optimal regimen of biologic therapy across a variety of patient factors.”

The study was funded by Novartis, the manufacturer of secukinumab (Cosentyx); several authors were company employees. Dr. Augustin disclosed that he has served as a consultant for or has been a paid speaker for clinical trials sponsored by companies that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of psoriasis, including AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Medac, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Over the period of 1 year, secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks demonstrated superior efficacy compared with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks in overweight patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, results from a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial showed.

The more frequent dosing was also associated with comparable safety, consistent with the established secukinumab safety profile.

“Weight may have an impact on pharmacokinetics and, therefore, on the clinical outcome of biologic treatment for psoriasis,” Matthias Augustin, MD, and colleagues wrote in the study, published recently in the British Journal of Dermatology. “Dose optimization may be highly beneficial for patients with higher body weight,” they noted, adding that their study supports previous study findings and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling data, showing that secukinumab dosed every 2 weeks “leads to a clinically and statistically significant advantage in PASI 90 response,” compared with standard dosing every 4 weeks in patients who weight 90 kg (about 198 pounds) or more, after 16 weeks of treatment, which was maintained until week 52.

For the study, Dr. Augustin, of the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 331 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis who weighed 90 kg or more to receive secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, or secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The mean age of the patients was 47 years, 75% were male, 92% were White, and their mean body weight was 111.1 kg, with a mean body mass index of 36.1 kg/m².

Patients who did not achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at week 16 on the monthly regimen (Q4W) either remained on that regimen or were up-titrated to dosing every 2 weeks (Q2W). Of the 331 patients, 165 received Q2W dosing and 166 received Q4W dosing. The researchers found that, at 16 weeks, patients in the Q2W dosing group had significantly higher PASI 90 responses, compared with those in the Q4W group (73.2% vs. 55.5%, respectively; P = .0003; odds ratio estimate, 2.3).

At 52 weeks, a greater proportion of patients in the Q2W group maintained responses to several outcome measures, compared with those in the Q4W group, including PASI 75 (88.9% vs. 74.8%), PASI 90 (76.4% vs. 52.4%), and PASI 100 (46.7% vs. 27.3%) scores; Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (75.9% vs. 55.6%); and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of 0 or 1 (66.1% vs. 48.8%).

In addition, those who had not had a PASI 90 response at week 16 who were up-titrated to Q2W dosing demonstrated higher efficacy responses at week 32, compared with those who remained on the Q4W regimen, with PASI 90 scores of 37.7% versus 16.5%, respectively.

Both regimens were well-tolerated, consistent with the known secukinumab safety profile; safety was comparable in the treatment arms, and there was “no clear dose-response relationship seen” for the incidence of overall adverse events, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation of the study treatment, “or AEs related to the identified risks” of infections, hypersensitivity, neutropenia and potential risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, the authors wrote.

“Despite more frequent dosing, the incidence of Candida infections was numerically lower in the Q2W group versus the Q4W group,” although there were not many cases, three patients versus six patients, respectively.

 

Need for individualized treatment

“Despite a decades-long revolution in development of highly efficacious biologic treatments for psoriasis, we are only in the early stages of developing personalized clinical approaches,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “The need for individualized treatment in psoriasis is very real; not every patient may respond to therapy in the same way. Obesity is one important comorbidity of psoriasis, and increased body mass index may be associated with variable treatment outcomes with systemic therapy.”

The data from this study, he added, “suggest that dose optimization may be an important strategy to enhance psoriasis clearance in patients with suboptimal treatment outcomes on standard dosing, including those with increased weight. Future studies should examine optimal regimen of biologic therapy across a variety of patient factors.”

The study was funded by Novartis, the manufacturer of secukinumab (Cosentyx); several authors were company employees. Dr. Augustin disclosed that he has served as a consultant for or has been a paid speaker for clinical trials sponsored by companies that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of psoriasis, including AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Medac, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.