MDedge Endocrinology

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

Long-awaited twincretin data, a study to inform prescribing in type 2 diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, and new guidance for treating type 1 diabetes in adults will be among the hot topics at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The meeting, to be held virtually for a second year, will take place June 25-29. As usual, the sessions will cover a wide range of basic, translational, and clinical material pertaining to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, complications, related subjects such as obesity and cardiovascular disease, and health care delivery.

New to this year’s agenda is COVID-19 and the many ways it has affected people with diabetes and health care delivery. And, more than in the past, the meeting will focus on ethnic and racial disparities in the delivery of care to people with diabetes.

And of course, there will be a tribute to another special aspect of 2021: the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

“I think there will undoubtedly be several things that will come out of this meeting that will change practice, and it will be important for clinicians to be aware of those, whether that’s groundbreaking trials or interpretation of data that will help us understand the interrelation between diabetes and COVID-19, which is still with us,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

And ADA president of medicine and science Ruth S. Weinstock, MD, PhD, said in an interview: “I think there are many exciting sessions at this year’s meeting. ...I hope that it will help [clinicians] take better care of their patients with diabetes.

”

Will the twincretin tirzepatide live up to the hype?

Between December 2020 and May 2021, Eli Lilly issued a series of four press releases touting positive top-line results from a series of phase 3 studies on its novel agent tirzepatide, dubbed a twincretin for its dual actions as an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptors.  

Detailed results from those four trials, SURPASS-1, -2, -3, and -5, will be presented in a symposium on Tuesday, June 29. Results from SURPASS-4 will be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

According to the company, the drug met its phase 3 primary efficacy endpoints for both hemoglobin A1c reduction and weight loss.

“At least the buzz on it has been good, but now we want to see the real data,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that “the early data on weight loss in particular were quite good. So then the question would be: Do you go to a GLP-1 [agonist] or a dual agonist? There will be studies to tease that out.”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Weinstock said: “Hopefully, more people with type 2 diabetes could achieve their glycemic goals, and those who would benefit from weight loss could have better weight loss. I haven’t seen the data, but if the addition of GIP can further improve glucose lowering as well as weight loss that would be great.”
 

How far will GRADE go in answering the second-drug question?

On Monday, June 28, results will be presented from the long-awaited Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes – A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) study.

Launched in 2013, the trial is funded by the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical company partners. Over 5,000 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within the prior 10 years and already taking metformin were randomized to one of four commonly used second-line glucose-lowering agents: glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, and basal insulin glargine. The aim was to determine which combination produced the best glycemic control with the fewest side effects.

Dr. Weinstock said: “Clinicians now have increasing numbers of medications to choose from when treating hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, and a common dilemma is which one to select. The results of GRADE should be informative for people taking care of type 2 diabetes in different populations.”

However, she also pointed out that GRADE does not include a group with a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, as the trial was designed prior to the availability of the drug class. Now, SGLT2 inhibitors are widely used and recommended for cardiovascular and kidney benefit as well as glucose lowering.

“I believe the future is really precision medicine where we individualize treatment. So, for someone with heart failure you might choose an SGLT2 inhibitor, but there are plenty of other subpopulations. They are going to be looking at different subpopulations. I think we’re all very interested in seeing what the results are, but it’s not the end of the story. We will still have to individualize therapy and keep in mind their kidney, heart, heart failure status, and other factors,” she said.

Dr. Gabbay pointed out that GRADE is important because it’s one of the few comparative effectiveness trials conducted in diabetes. “I think it will be very rich [data] that will impact practice in a variety of ways. On the one hand, it doesn’t do everything we’d want it to do, but on the other hand, if you think of the number of comparative effectiveness trials in diabetes, there are not a lot ... I think it will be big.”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes: A lot to discuss  

In contrast to the ADA scientific sessions in 2020, which took place too soon after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to include much material about it, this year’s meeting will address many different aspects of the novel coronavirus.

Sessions will cover minimizing risk in people with diabetes during the pandemic, the latest data on whether COVID-19 triggers diabetes, and if so, by what mechanism, mental health issues related to COVID-19, as well as the management of foot care, pregnancy, and the pediatric population during the pandemic.

On Sunday, June 27, a symposium will be devoted to results of the DARE-19 trial, which explored the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in more than 1200 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The overall results, presented in May 2021 at the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, showed a nonsignificant trend for benefit in time to organ failure or death compared with placebo. At ADA, separate efficacy and safety results for patients with and without diabetes will be presented.

According to Dr. Weinstock, “We know that in nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes the SGLT2 inhibitors can help preserve kidney function and reduce heart failure. But we also know there can be diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections and other side effects, so it’s been unclear up till now in type 2 diabetes whether they are safe and effective in people hospitalized in respiratory failure with COVID-19. And, given that people with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 are more likely to require mechanical ventilation and are at greater risk of mortality, we’re anxious to see what these results are.”

Dr. Gabbay commented that, when the DARE study was initiated in April 2020, there were concerns about whether it was safe. And even now, “we’re still not sure about whether SGLT2 inhibitors should be stopped in hospitalized patients. The recommendations say to stop. I think this will be interesting.”

Also to be addressed in several meeting sessions are related issues the pandemic has brought forth, such as the use of telehealth for routine diabetes management, inpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring, and, of course, health care disparities.

“A lot of important issues related to COVID-19 of great interest will be discussed in a variety of sessions,” Dr. Weinstock said.
 

Type 1 diabetes in adults: It’s not just a pediatric disease  

On Monday, June 28, a draft of the first-ever ADA/EASD consensus report on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults will be presented, with the final version slated for the annual meeting of the EASD in September 2021.

A previous ADA position statement had addressed management of type 1 diabetes across all age groups, but this will be the first to focus on adults. This is important, given that type 1 diabetes was formerly called juvenile diabetes and is still often perceived as a childhood disease. Adults who develop it are commonly misdiagnosed as having type 2 diabetes, Dr. Gabbay noted.

“A big-time issue is recognition of type 1 in adults. We often see patients come in who were misdiagnosed, on metformin, and not given insulin. Often they go for a while and get sicker and sicker.” Or, he said, sometimes they’re prescribed insulin but not the intensive regimens that are required for adequate glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. “They can be suboptimally treated and it can take years to get the right therapy. ... It’s unfortunate that they have to experience that.”

Dr. Weinstock, one of the authors of the statement, said it will cover a range of issues, including care schedules, therapies, psychosocial issues, and social determinants of health. “We tried to be comprehensive in this in terms of glycemic management. It doesn’t include a discussion of complications or their management. It really focuses on diagnosis and glycemic management.”
 

Dealing with disparities: ADA has taken several steps

A priority of the ADA is addressing disparities in the delivery of health care to people with diabetes, both Dr. Weinstock and Dr. Gabbay stressed. Quite a few sessions at the meeting will touch on various aspects, including sessions on Friday afternoon on “Health Care as a Social Justice Issue in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes,” and separate sessions on “Challenges and Successes With Health Inequities and Health Disparities in Diabetes” in adult and pediatric populations.

“For us at ADA, addressing health disparities is extremely important and we have a number of new programs this year to address this very important issue,” Dr. Weinstock said.

In August 2020, the ADA issued a Health Equity Bill of Rights, which includes access to insulin and other medications, affordable health care, and freedom from stigma and discrimination. The Association has also requested applications from researchers studying disparities in diabetes care.
 

Celebrating 100 years of lifesaving medication

Of course, the ADA will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin. A session on Saturday afternoon, entitled, “Insulin at Its 100th Birthday,” will cover the history of the landmark discovery, as well as insulin biosynthesis and mechanisms of action, and “the future of insulin as a therapy.”

Dr. Weinstock noted: “The discovery of insulin was an incredible achievement that, of course, saved the lives of many millions of children and adults. Before insulin became available, children and adults only survived for days or at most a few years after diagnosis. We will commemorate this anniversary.”
 

The virtual platform: Like last year, only better

Dr. Gabbay said in an interview that the virtual setup will be similar to last year’s in that talks will be prerecorded to ensure there are no technical glitches, but for many, presenters will be available afterward for live question and answers.

This year, though, the chat functionality will be enhanced to allow for discussion during the presentation, separate from the scientific question and answers. And, he noted, the virtual exhibit hall will be “bigger and better.”

Despite these improvements, Dr. Gabbay said, the plan is to go back to an in-person meeting in 2022 in New Orleans.

Dr. Weinstock’s institution receives research grants from Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-awaited twincretin data, a study to inform prescribing in type 2 diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, and new guidance for treating type 1 diabetes in adults will be among the hot topics at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The meeting, to be held virtually for a second year, will take place June 25-29. As usual, the sessions will cover a wide range of basic, translational, and clinical material pertaining to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, complications, related subjects such as obesity and cardiovascular disease, and health care delivery.

New to this year’s agenda is COVID-19 and the many ways it has affected people with diabetes and health care delivery. And, more than in the past, the meeting will focus on ethnic and racial disparities in the delivery of care to people with diabetes.

And of course, there will be a tribute to another special aspect of 2021: the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

“I think there will undoubtedly be several things that will come out of this meeting that will change practice, and it will be important for clinicians to be aware of those, whether that’s groundbreaking trials or interpretation of data that will help us understand the interrelation between diabetes and COVID-19, which is still with us,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

And ADA president of medicine and science Ruth S. Weinstock, MD, PhD, said in an interview: “I think there are many exciting sessions at this year’s meeting. ...I hope that it will help [clinicians] take better care of their patients with diabetes.

”

Will the twincretin tirzepatide live up to the hype?

Between December 2020 and May 2021, Eli Lilly issued a series of four press releases touting positive top-line results from a series of phase 3 studies on its novel agent tirzepatide, dubbed a twincretin for its dual actions as an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptors.  

Detailed results from those four trials, SURPASS-1, -2, -3, and -5, will be presented in a symposium on Tuesday, June 29. Results from SURPASS-4 will be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

According to the company, the drug met its phase 3 primary efficacy endpoints for both hemoglobin A1c reduction and weight loss.

“At least the buzz on it has been good, but now we want to see the real data,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that “the early data on weight loss in particular were quite good. So then the question would be: Do you go to a GLP-1 [agonist] or a dual agonist? There will be studies to tease that out.”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Weinstock said: “Hopefully, more people with type 2 diabetes could achieve their glycemic goals, and those who would benefit from weight loss could have better weight loss. I haven’t seen the data, but if the addition of GIP can further improve glucose lowering as well as weight loss that would be great.”
 

How far will GRADE go in answering the second-drug question?

On Monday, June 28, results will be presented from the long-awaited Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes – A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) study.

Launched in 2013, the trial is funded by the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical company partners. Over 5,000 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within the prior 10 years and already taking metformin were randomized to one of four commonly used second-line glucose-lowering agents: glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, and basal insulin glargine. The aim was to determine which combination produced the best glycemic control with the fewest side effects.

Dr. Weinstock said: “Clinicians now have increasing numbers of medications to choose from when treating hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, and a common dilemma is which one to select. The results of GRADE should be informative for people taking care of type 2 diabetes in different populations.”

However, she also pointed out that GRADE does not include a group with a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, as the trial was designed prior to the availability of the drug class. Now, SGLT2 inhibitors are widely used and recommended for cardiovascular and kidney benefit as well as glucose lowering.

“I believe the future is really precision medicine where we individualize treatment. So, for someone with heart failure you might choose an SGLT2 inhibitor, but there are plenty of other subpopulations. They are going to be looking at different subpopulations. I think we’re all very interested in seeing what the results are, but it’s not the end of the story. We will still have to individualize therapy and keep in mind their kidney, heart, heart failure status, and other factors,” she said.

Dr. Gabbay pointed out that GRADE is important because it’s one of the few comparative effectiveness trials conducted in diabetes. “I think it will be very rich [data] that will impact practice in a variety of ways. On the one hand, it doesn’t do everything we’d want it to do, but on the other hand, if you think of the number of comparative effectiveness trials in diabetes, there are not a lot ... I think it will be big.”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes: A lot to discuss  

In contrast to the ADA scientific sessions in 2020, which took place too soon after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to include much material about it, this year’s meeting will address many different aspects of the novel coronavirus.

Sessions will cover minimizing risk in people with diabetes during the pandemic, the latest data on whether COVID-19 triggers diabetes, and if so, by what mechanism, mental health issues related to COVID-19, as well as the management of foot care, pregnancy, and the pediatric population during the pandemic.

On Sunday, June 27, a symposium will be devoted to results of the DARE-19 trial, which explored the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in more than 1200 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The overall results, presented in May 2021 at the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, showed a nonsignificant trend for benefit in time to organ failure or death compared with placebo. At ADA, separate efficacy and safety results for patients with and without diabetes will be presented.

According to Dr. Weinstock, “We know that in nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes the SGLT2 inhibitors can help preserve kidney function and reduce heart failure. But we also know there can be diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections and other side effects, so it’s been unclear up till now in type 2 diabetes whether they are safe and effective in people hospitalized in respiratory failure with COVID-19. And, given that people with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 are more likely to require mechanical ventilation and are at greater risk of mortality, we’re anxious to see what these results are.”

Dr. Gabbay commented that, when the DARE study was initiated in April 2020, there were concerns about whether it was safe. And even now, “we’re still not sure about whether SGLT2 inhibitors should be stopped in hospitalized patients. The recommendations say to stop. I think this will be interesting.”

Also to be addressed in several meeting sessions are related issues the pandemic has brought forth, such as the use of telehealth for routine diabetes management, inpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring, and, of course, health care disparities.

“A lot of important issues related to COVID-19 of great interest will be discussed in a variety of sessions,” Dr. Weinstock said.
 

Type 1 diabetes in adults: It’s not just a pediatric disease  

On Monday, June 28, a draft of the first-ever ADA/EASD consensus report on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults will be presented, with the final version slated for the annual meeting of the EASD in September 2021.

A previous ADA position statement had addressed management of type 1 diabetes across all age groups, but this will be the first to focus on adults. This is important, given that type 1 diabetes was formerly called juvenile diabetes and is still often perceived as a childhood disease. Adults who develop it are commonly misdiagnosed as having type 2 diabetes, Dr. Gabbay noted.

“A big-time issue is recognition of type 1 in adults. We often see patients come in who were misdiagnosed, on metformin, and not given insulin. Often they go for a while and get sicker and sicker.” Or, he said, sometimes they’re prescribed insulin but not the intensive regimens that are required for adequate glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. “They can be suboptimally treated and it can take years to get the right therapy. ... It’s unfortunate that they have to experience that.”

Dr. Weinstock, one of the authors of the statement, said it will cover a range of issues, including care schedules, therapies, psychosocial issues, and social determinants of health. “We tried to be comprehensive in this in terms of glycemic management. It doesn’t include a discussion of complications or their management. It really focuses on diagnosis and glycemic management.”
 

Dealing with disparities: ADA has taken several steps

A priority of the ADA is addressing disparities in the delivery of health care to people with diabetes, both Dr. Weinstock and Dr. Gabbay stressed. Quite a few sessions at the meeting will touch on various aspects, including sessions on Friday afternoon on “Health Care as a Social Justice Issue in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes,” and separate sessions on “Challenges and Successes With Health Inequities and Health Disparities in Diabetes” in adult and pediatric populations.

“For us at ADA, addressing health disparities is extremely important and we have a number of new programs this year to address this very important issue,” Dr. Weinstock said.

In August 2020, the ADA issued a Health Equity Bill of Rights, which includes access to insulin and other medications, affordable health care, and freedom from stigma and discrimination. The Association has also requested applications from researchers studying disparities in diabetes care.
 

Celebrating 100 years of lifesaving medication

Of course, the ADA will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin. A session on Saturday afternoon, entitled, “Insulin at Its 100th Birthday,” will cover the history of the landmark discovery, as well as insulin biosynthesis and mechanisms of action, and “the future of insulin as a therapy.”

Dr. Weinstock noted: “The discovery of insulin was an incredible achievement that, of course, saved the lives of many millions of children and adults. Before insulin became available, children and adults only survived for days or at most a few years after diagnosis. We will commemorate this anniversary.”
 

The virtual platform: Like last year, only better

Dr. Gabbay said in an interview that the virtual setup will be similar to last year’s in that talks will be prerecorded to ensure there are no technical glitches, but for many, presenters will be available afterward for live question and answers.

This year, though, the chat functionality will be enhanced to allow for discussion during the presentation, separate from the scientific question and answers. And, he noted, the virtual exhibit hall will be “bigger and better.”

Despite these improvements, Dr. Gabbay said, the plan is to go back to an in-person meeting in 2022 in New Orleans.

Dr. Weinstock’s institution receives research grants from Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-awaited twincretin data, a study to inform prescribing in type 2 diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, and new guidance for treating type 1 diabetes in adults will be among the hot topics at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The meeting, to be held virtually for a second year, will take place June 25-29. As usual, the sessions will cover a wide range of basic, translational, and clinical material pertaining to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, complications, related subjects such as obesity and cardiovascular disease, and health care delivery.

New to this year’s agenda is COVID-19 and the many ways it has affected people with diabetes and health care delivery. And, more than in the past, the meeting will focus on ethnic and racial disparities in the delivery of care to people with diabetes.

And of course, there will be a tribute to another special aspect of 2021: the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

“I think there will undoubtedly be several things that will come out of this meeting that will change practice, and it will be important for clinicians to be aware of those, whether that’s groundbreaking trials or interpretation of data that will help us understand the interrelation between diabetes and COVID-19, which is still with us,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

And ADA president of medicine and science Ruth S. Weinstock, MD, PhD, said in an interview: “I think there are many exciting sessions at this year’s meeting. ...I hope that it will help [clinicians] take better care of their patients with diabetes.

”

Will the twincretin tirzepatide live up to the hype?

Between December 2020 and May 2021, Eli Lilly issued a series of four press releases touting positive top-line results from a series of phase 3 studies on its novel agent tirzepatide, dubbed a twincretin for its dual actions as an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptors.  

Detailed results from those four trials, SURPASS-1, -2, -3, and -5, will be presented in a symposium on Tuesday, June 29. Results from SURPASS-4 will be presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

According to the company, the drug met its phase 3 primary efficacy endpoints for both hemoglobin A1c reduction and weight loss.

“At least the buzz on it has been good, but now we want to see the real data,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that “the early data on weight loss in particular were quite good. So then the question would be: Do you go to a GLP-1 [agonist] or a dual agonist? There will be studies to tease that out.”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Weinstock said: “Hopefully, more people with type 2 diabetes could achieve their glycemic goals, and those who would benefit from weight loss could have better weight loss. I haven’t seen the data, but if the addition of GIP can further improve glucose lowering as well as weight loss that would be great.”
 

How far will GRADE go in answering the second-drug question?

On Monday, June 28, results will be presented from the long-awaited Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes – A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) study.

Launched in 2013, the trial is funded by the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical company partners. Over 5,000 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within the prior 10 years and already taking metformin were randomized to one of four commonly used second-line glucose-lowering agents: glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, and basal insulin glargine. The aim was to determine which combination produced the best glycemic control with the fewest side effects.

Dr. Weinstock said: “Clinicians now have increasing numbers of medications to choose from when treating hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, and a common dilemma is which one to select. The results of GRADE should be informative for people taking care of type 2 diabetes in different populations.”

However, she also pointed out that GRADE does not include a group with a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, as the trial was designed prior to the availability of the drug class. Now, SGLT2 inhibitors are widely used and recommended for cardiovascular and kidney benefit as well as glucose lowering.

“I believe the future is really precision medicine where we individualize treatment. So, for someone with heart failure you might choose an SGLT2 inhibitor, but there are plenty of other subpopulations. They are going to be looking at different subpopulations. I think we’re all very interested in seeing what the results are, but it’s not the end of the story. We will still have to individualize therapy and keep in mind their kidney, heart, heart failure status, and other factors,” she said.

Dr. Gabbay pointed out that GRADE is important because it’s one of the few comparative effectiveness trials conducted in diabetes. “I think it will be very rich [data] that will impact practice in a variety of ways. On the one hand, it doesn’t do everything we’d want it to do, but on the other hand, if you think of the number of comparative effectiveness trials in diabetes, there are not a lot ... I think it will be big.”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes: A lot to discuss  

In contrast to the ADA scientific sessions in 2020, which took place too soon after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to include much material about it, this year’s meeting will address many different aspects of the novel coronavirus.

Sessions will cover minimizing risk in people with diabetes during the pandemic, the latest data on whether COVID-19 triggers diabetes, and if so, by what mechanism, mental health issues related to COVID-19, as well as the management of foot care, pregnancy, and the pediatric population during the pandemic.

On Sunday, June 27, a symposium will be devoted to results of the DARE-19 trial, which explored the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in more than 1200 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The overall results, presented in May 2021 at the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, showed a nonsignificant trend for benefit in time to organ failure or death compared with placebo. At ADA, separate efficacy and safety results for patients with and without diabetes will be presented.

According to Dr. Weinstock, “We know that in nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes the SGLT2 inhibitors can help preserve kidney function and reduce heart failure. But we also know there can be diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections and other side effects, so it’s been unclear up till now in type 2 diabetes whether they are safe and effective in people hospitalized in respiratory failure with COVID-19. And, given that people with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 are more likely to require mechanical ventilation and are at greater risk of mortality, we’re anxious to see what these results are.”

Dr. Gabbay commented that, when the DARE study was initiated in April 2020, there were concerns about whether it was safe. And even now, “we’re still not sure about whether SGLT2 inhibitors should be stopped in hospitalized patients. The recommendations say to stop. I think this will be interesting.”

Also to be addressed in several meeting sessions are related issues the pandemic has brought forth, such as the use of telehealth for routine diabetes management, inpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring, and, of course, health care disparities.

“A lot of important issues related to COVID-19 of great interest will be discussed in a variety of sessions,” Dr. Weinstock said.
 

Type 1 diabetes in adults: It’s not just a pediatric disease  

On Monday, June 28, a draft of the first-ever ADA/EASD consensus report on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults will be presented, with the final version slated for the annual meeting of the EASD in September 2021.

A previous ADA position statement had addressed management of type 1 diabetes across all age groups, but this will be the first to focus on adults. This is important, given that type 1 diabetes was formerly called juvenile diabetes and is still often perceived as a childhood disease. Adults who develop it are commonly misdiagnosed as having type 2 diabetes, Dr. Gabbay noted.

“A big-time issue is recognition of type 1 in adults. We often see patients come in who were misdiagnosed, on metformin, and not given insulin. Often they go for a while and get sicker and sicker.” Or, he said, sometimes they’re prescribed insulin but not the intensive regimens that are required for adequate glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. “They can be suboptimally treated and it can take years to get the right therapy. ... It’s unfortunate that they have to experience that.”

Dr. Weinstock, one of the authors of the statement, said it will cover a range of issues, including care schedules, therapies, psychosocial issues, and social determinants of health. “We tried to be comprehensive in this in terms of glycemic management. It doesn’t include a discussion of complications or their management. It really focuses on diagnosis and glycemic management.”
 

Dealing with disparities: ADA has taken several steps

A priority of the ADA is addressing disparities in the delivery of health care to people with diabetes, both Dr. Weinstock and Dr. Gabbay stressed. Quite a few sessions at the meeting will touch on various aspects, including sessions on Friday afternoon on “Health Care as a Social Justice Issue in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes,” and separate sessions on “Challenges and Successes With Health Inequities and Health Disparities in Diabetes” in adult and pediatric populations.

“For us at ADA, addressing health disparities is extremely important and we have a number of new programs this year to address this very important issue,” Dr. Weinstock said.

In August 2020, the ADA issued a Health Equity Bill of Rights, which includes access to insulin and other medications, affordable health care, and freedom from stigma and discrimination. The Association has also requested applications from researchers studying disparities in diabetes care.
 

Celebrating 100 years of lifesaving medication

Of course, the ADA will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin. A session on Saturday afternoon, entitled, “Insulin at Its 100th Birthday,” will cover the history of the landmark discovery, as well as insulin biosynthesis and mechanisms of action, and “the future of insulin as a therapy.”

Dr. Weinstock noted: “The discovery of insulin was an incredible achievement that, of course, saved the lives of many millions of children and adults. Before insulin became available, children and adults only survived for days or at most a few years after diagnosis. We will commemorate this anniversary.”
 

The virtual platform: Like last year, only better

Dr. Gabbay said in an interview that the virtual setup will be similar to last year’s in that talks will be prerecorded to ensure there are no technical glitches, but for many, presenters will be available afterward for live question and answers.

This year, though, the chat functionality will be enhanced to allow for discussion during the presentation, separate from the scientific question and answers. And, he noted, the virtual exhibit hall will be “bigger and better.”

Despite these improvements, Dr. Gabbay said, the plan is to go back to an in-person meeting in 2022 in New Orleans.

Dr. Weinstock’s institution receives research grants from Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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