Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

A novel blood test that can detect up to 50 different cancers from a single blood draw is gaining traction in the United States.

The Galleri blood test is being now offered by a number of United States health networks.

The company marketing the test, GRAIL, has established partnerships with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mercy Health, Ochsner Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Community Health Network, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, Premier, and Cleveland Clinic, among others.

Cleveland Clinic’s Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological Kidney Institute, is enthusiastic about the test, describing it as a “game-changer” and emphasizing that it can detect many different cancers and at a very early stage.

“It completely changes the way we think about screening for cancer,” commented Jeff Venstrom, MD, chief medical officer at GRAIL. He joined the company because “there are not many things in life where you can be part of a disruptive paradigm and disruptive technology, and this really is disruptive,” he said in an interview.
 

‘The devil is in the details’

But there is some concern among clinicians that widespread clinical use of the test may be premature.

Having a blood test for multiple cancers is a “very good idea, and the scientific basis for this platform is sound,” commented Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

“But the devil is in the details to ensure the test can accurately detect very early cancers and there is a pathway for subsequent workup (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, etc.),” Dr. Rebbeck told this news organization.

Galleri is offering the test to individuals who are older than 50 and have a family history of cancer or those who are high risk for cancer or immunocompromised. They suggest that interested individuals get in touch with their health care professional, who then needs to register with GRAIL and order the test.

As well as needing a prescription, interested individuals will have to pay for it out of pocket, around $950. The test is not covered by medical insurance and is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Falls into primary care setting

Dr. Rebbeck commented that Galleri is a screening test for individuals who don’t have cancer, so the test is intended to fall into the primary care setting. But he warned that “clinical pathways are not yet in place (but are being developed) so that primary care providers can effectively use them.”

The test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA in a blood sample.

The methylation turns genes on or off, explains Cleveland Clinic’s Dr. Klein in his post. “It’s like fingerprints and how fingerprints tell the difference between two people,” he wrote. “The methylation patterns are fingerprints that are characteristic of each kind of cancer. They look one way for lung cancer and different for colon cancer.” 

The test returns one of two possible results: either “positive, cancer signal detected” or “negative, no cancer signal detected.”

According to the company, when a cancer signal is detected, the Galleri test predicts the cancer signal origin “with high accuracy, to help guide the next steps to diagnosis.”

However, one problem for clinical practice is all the follow-up tests an individual may undergo if their test comes back positive, said Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

“Not everybody will have an actual cancer, but they may undergo many tests, with a lot of stress and cost and still not find anything. I can tell you every time someone undergoes a test looking for cancer, that is not an easy day,” Dr. Roychowdhury said in an interview.

In a large-scale validation study, the Galleri test had a specificity of 99.5% (false-positive rate of 0.5%), meaning in roughly 200 people tested without cancer, only one person received a false-positive result (that is, “cancer signal detected” when cancer is not present).

The overall sensitivity of the test for any stage of cancer was 51.5%, although it was higher for later-stage cancers (77% for stage III and 90.1% for stage IV) and lower for early-stage cancers (16.8% for stage I and 40.4% for stage II).
 

Exacerbate health disparities?

In Dr. Rebbeck’s view, the characteristics of the test are still “relatively poor for detecting very early cancers, so it will need additional tweaking before it really achieves the goal of multi-cancer EARLY detection,” he said.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledges that the test is “not perfect yet” and says the company will continue to update and improve its performance. “We have some new data coming out in September,” he said.

Clinical data are being accumulated in the United Kingdom, where the Galleri test is being investigated in a large trial run by the National Health Service (NHS). The company recently announced that the enrollment of 140,000 healthy cancer-free volunteers aged 50-77 into this trial has now been completed and claimed this the largest-ever study of a multi-cancer early detection test.

Dr. Roychowdhury said he would encourage anyone interested in the test to join a clinical trial.

Another expert approached for comment last year, when GRAIL first started marketing the test, was in agreement. This test should be viewed as one that is still under clinical investigation, commented William Grady, MD, a member of the clinical research division and public health sciences division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

“The Galleri test is still unproven in the clinical care setting and ... I am concerned that many of the results will be false-positives and will cause many unnecessary follow-up tests and imaging studies as well as anxiety in the people getting the test done,” Dr. Grady said.

Dr. Rebbeck said another issue that needs to be addressed is whether all populations will have access to and benefit from these types of blood tests to screen for cancer, given that they are expensive. 

“There is a great danger – as we have seen with many other technological innovations – that the wealthy and connected benefit, but the majority of the population, and particularly those who are underserved, do not,” Dr. Rebbeck said.

“As a result, health disparities are created or exacerbated. This is something that needs to be addressed so that the future use of these tests will provide equitable benefits,” he added.

Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Roychowdhury have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Venstrom is an employee of GRAIL.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is known to often strike the mortal blow in patients with cancer, a national analysis puts in stark relief the burden of CV-related hospitalizations in this vulnerable population.

Results show that between 2004 and 2017, CV admissions increased 23.2% among patients with a cancer diagnosis, whereas admissions fell 10.9% among those without cancer.

Admissions increased steadily across all cancer types, except prostate cancer, with heart failure being the most common reason for admission.

“Hospital admissions is really important because we know that the size of this group is increasing, given that they live longer and many of the treatments that we offer cause cardiovascular disease or increase the risk of having cardiovascular events. So, from a health care planning perspective, I think it’s really important to see what the burden is likely to be in the next few years,” senior author Mamas Mamas, MD, Keele University, England, told this news organization.

For physicians and the wider population, he said, the findings underscore the need to shift the conversation from saying that patients with cancer are at increased CVD risk to asking how to mitigate this risk. “Because I would say that this increase in cardiovascular admissions, that’s a failure from a preventative perspective.”

The study was published in the European Heart Journal: Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes.

Individual cancer types

The researchers, led by Ofer Kobo, MD, also with Keele University, used the National Inpatient Sample to identify 42.5 million weighted cases of CV admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AFib) or atrial flutter, and intracranial hemorrhage from January 2004 to December 2017. Of these, 1.9 million had a record of cancer.

Patients with cancer were older; had a higher prevalence of valvular disease, anemia, and coagulopathy; and had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity than did patients without cancer.

The most common cancer type was hematologic cancers (26.1%), followed by lung (18.7%), gastrointestinal (12.4%), prostate (11.6%), breast (6.7%), and other in 24.4%.

The admission rate increased across all six admission causes – between 7% for AMI and ischemic stroke and 46% for AFib.

Heart failure was the chief reason for admission among all patients. Annual rates per 100,000 U.S. population increased in patients with cancer (from 13.6 to 16.6; P for trend = .02) and declined in those without (from 352.2 to 349.8; P for trend < .001).

“In the past, patients would be started on medications, and perhaps the importance of monitoring [left ventricular] LV function wasn’t as widely known, whereas now we’re much more aggressive in looking at it and much more aggressive at trying to prevent it,” Dr. Mamas said. “But even with this greater identification and attempting to modify regimens, we’re still getting quite substantial increases in heart failure admissions in this population. And what really surprised me is that it wasn’t just in the breast cancer population, but it was nearly across the board.”

He noted that patients are at highest risk from CV events within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis. “So that’s really the time where you’ve got to be really aggressive in looking and working up their cardiovascular profile.”

Patients with hematologic cancers (9.7-13.5), lung (7.4-8.9), and gastrointestinal cancer (4.6-6.3) had the highest crude admission rates of CV hospitalizations per 100,000 U.S. population.

The CV admission rate went up from 2.5 to 3.7 per 100,000 U.S. population for breast cancer, and in prostate cancer, the rate dropped from 5.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 U.S. population.

Of note, patients with hematologic cancers also had the highest rate of heart failure hospitalization across all cancer types, which, coupled with their increasing admission rates, likely reflects their exposure to a “constellation of cardiotoxic therapies” as well as pathologic processes related to the cancers themselves, the authors suggest.

In-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients with cancer than those without, ranging from 5% for patients with breast cancer to 9.6% for patients with lung cancer versus 4.2% for those without cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the odds ratio for mortality was highest in those admitted with AFib (4.43), followed by pulmonary embolism (2.36), AMI (2.31), ischemic stroke (2.29), and heart failure (2.24).

In line with prior work and general population trends, in-hospital deaths in primary CV admissions trended lower among patients with cancer over the study period.

Mitigating risk

Commenting on the study, Joerg Herrmann, MD, director of the cardio-oncology clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that the data are “extremely important” because they reflect admissions during a new era of cancer therapy. “Targeted therapies all came out about the turn of the millennium, so we’re not really looking at cancer patients treated with only old and ancient strategies.”

This may be one reason for the increased admissions, but because the study lacked information on specific cancer treatments and the date of cancer diagnosis, it’s not possible to tease out whether the uptick is related to cardiotoxicity or because the oncology outcomes have improved so much that this is a growing population, he said.

One clear implication, however, is that whoever is working on the hospital service will see more patients with a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Herrmann observed.

“Though some may have tried to maybe not get involved with this topic as much, it really calls for some broader scope to get familiar with this very entity,” he said. “And that plays out, in particular, in those patients with a diagnosis of active cancer.”

Dr. Herrmann and colleagues previously reported that patients with active leukemia or lymphoma who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to receive guideline-directed therapies, even at the Mayo Clinic.

Similarly, a 2020 report by Dr. Mamas and colleagues found that patients with a variety of active cancers derived similar benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation MI as those without cancer but received the treatment less commonly.

Although there’s a greater appreciation that patients with cancer benefit equally from aggressive treatment, much more can be done to mitigate CV risk, Dr. Mamas noted. Valuable coronary information captured by MRI and CT done as part of the cancer investigation is often overlooked. For example, “we know that breast calcification and vascular calcification in the breast are very strong predictors of cardiovascular outcomes and yet people aren’t using this information.”

There are numerous shared risk factors in the development of cancer and coronary artery disease, and patients with cancer often have much worse CV risk profiles but aren’t routinely risk stratified from a CV perspective, he said.

Dr. Mamas said that his team is also studying whether CVD risk prediction tools like the Framingham Risk Score, which were derived from noncancer populations, work as well in patients with cancer. “Often, when you look at the performance of these tools in populations that weren’t covered, they’re much worse.”

“A lot of cancer survivors worry about the recurrence of their cancer and will religiously go and have repeated scans, religiously check themselves, and have all these investigations but don’t think about the actual risk that is greater for them, which is cardiovascular risk,” he said.

The authors report no study funding or relevant financial relationships.

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

New York City veterinarian Erin Kulick used to be a weekend warrior. Only 2½ years ago, the 38-year-old new mother played ultimate Frisbee and flag football with friends. She went for regular 30-minute runs to burn off stress.

Now, Dr. Kulick is usually so exhausted, she can’t walk nonstop for 15 minutes. She recently tried to take her 4-year-old son, Cooper, to the American Museum of Natural History for his first visit, but ended up on a bench outside the museum, sobbing in the rain, because she couldn’t even get through the first hurdle of standing in line. “I just wanted to be there with my kid,” she said.

Dr. Kulick got sick with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020, 9 months before the first vaccine would be approved. Now she is among the estimated one in five infected Americans, or 19%, whose symptoms developed into long COVID.

Dr. Kulick also is now vaccinated and boosted. Had a vaccine been available sooner, could it have protected her from long COVID?

Evidence is starting to show it’s likely.

“The best way not to have long COVID is not to have COVID at all,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University. “To the extent that vaccination can prevent you from getting COVID at all, then it helps to reduce long COVID.”

And just as vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, they also seem to reduce the risk of long COVID if people do get breakthrough infections. People with more serious initial illness appear more likely to have prolonged symptoms, but those with milder disease can certainly get it, too.

“You’re more likely to have long COVID with more severe disease, and we have ample evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of disease,” Dr. Horwitz said. “We also now have quite a lot of evidence that vaccination does reduce your risk of long COVID – probably because it reduces your risk of severe disease.”

There is little consensus about how much vaccines can lower the risk of long-term COVID symptoms, but several studies suggest that number lies anywhere from 15% to more than 80%.

That might seem like a big variation, but infectious disease experts argue that trying to interpret the gap isn’t as important as noticing what’s consistent across all these studies: “Vaccines do offer some protection, but it’s incomplete,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Dr. Al-Aly, who has led several large studies on long COVID, said focusing on the fact that vaccines do offer some protection is a much better public health message than looking at the different levels of risk.

“Vaccines do a miraculous job for what they were designed to do,” said Dr. Al-Aly. “Vaccines were designed to reduce the risk of hospitalization ... and for that, vaccines are still holding up, even with all the changes in the virus.”

Still, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, head of the Humanitas Research Hospital’s vaccination center in Milan, thinks some studies may have underestimated the level of long COVID protection from vaccines because of limits in the study methods, such as not including enough women, who are more affected by long COVID. Her recent study, which looked at 2,560 health care professionals working in nine Italian centers from March 2020 to April 2022, focused on the risk for healthy women and men in their 20s to their 70s.

In the paper, Dr. Azzolini and associates reported that two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 from 42% among those who are unvaccinated to 16%-17%. In other words, they found unvaccinated people in the study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks.

But Dr. Azzolini and Dr. Al-Aly still say that, even for the vaccinated, as long as COVID is around, masks are necessary. That’s because current vaccines don’t do enough to reduce transmission, said Dr. Al-Aly. “The only way that can really help [stop] transmission is covering our nose and mouth with a mask.”
 

How vaccinations affect people who already have long COVID

Some long COVID patients have said they got better after they get boosted, while some say they’re getting worse, said Dr. Horwitz, who is also a lead investigator at the National Institutes of Health’s flagship RECOVER program, a 4-year research project to study long COVID across the United States. (The NIH is still recruiting volunteers for these studies, which are also open to people who have never had COVID.)

One study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed survey data of more than 28,000 people infected with COVID in the United Kingdom and found a 13% reduction in long-term symptoms after a first dose of the vaccine, although it was unclear from the data if the improvement was sustained.

A second dose was associated with another 8% improvement over a 2-month period. “It’s reassuring that we see an average modest improvement in symptoms, not an average worsening in symptoms,” said Daniel Ayoubkhani, principal statistician at the U.K. Office for National Statistics and lead author of the study. Of course, the experience will differ among different people.

“It doesn’t appear that vaccination is the silver bullet that’s going to eradicate long COVID,” he said, but evidence from multiple studies suggests vaccines may help people with long-term symptoms.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told a White House summit in July that one of the best ways to prevent long COVID is to develop the next generation of vaccines that also prevent milder cases by blocking transmission in the first place.

Back in New York, Dr. Kulick is now triple vaccinated. She’s due for a fourth dose soon but admits she’s “terrified every time” that she’s going to get sicker.

In her Facebook support group for long COVID, she reads that most people with prolonged symptoms handle it well. She has also noticed some of her symptoms eased after her first two doses of vaccine.

Since being diagnosed, Dr. Kulick learned she has a genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues that support skin, joints, organs, and blood vessels, and which her doctors say may have made her more prone to long COVID. She’s also being screened for autoimmune diseases, but for now, the only relief she has found has come from long COVID physical therapy, changes to her diet, and integrative medicine.

Dr. Kulick is still trying to figure out how she can get better while keeping her long hours at her veterinary job – and her health benefits. She is thankful her husband is a devoted caregiver to their son and a professional jazz musician with a schedule that allows for some flexibility.

“But it’s really hard when every week feels like I’ve run a marathon,” she said. “I can barely make it through.”

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

Time-restricted eating during the earlier part of the day (eTRE) may promote weight loss and reduce blood pressure, new findings suggest.

Previous studies have produced mixed results regarding the weight-loss potential for intermittent fasting, the practice of alternating eating with extended fasting, and the “time-restricted eating” format, where eating is restricted to a specific, often 10-hour, time window during the day.

In a new randomized clinical trial of 90 people with obesity in which that time window was 7 AM through 3 PM, so 8 hours long, researchers report that “eTRE was more effective for losing weight and lowering diastolic blood pressure than was eating over a period of 12 or more hours at 14 weeks. The eTRE intervention may therefore be an effective treatment for both obesity and hypertension.” The study, by Humaira Jamshed, PhD, of the department of nutrition sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues, was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Shalender Bhasin, MBBS, points out that the study findings differ from those of a previous trial published in April of 139 adults conducted in China, which did not find a significant weight loss benefit with TRE versus ad lib eating.

“The scientific premise and the preclinical data of the effects of TRE are promising, but the inconsistency among studies renders it difficult to draw strong inferences from these well-conducted but relatively small trials,” notes Dr. Bhasin, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
 

Need for larger and longer trials of TRE

Dr. Bhasin says – and the study authors also acknowledge – that much larger randomized clinical trials of longer duration are needed “to comprehensively evaluate the hypothesized benefits and risks of long-term TRE of calorically restricted diets in adults.”

Commenting on the study for the U.K. Science Media Centre, Simon Steenson, PhD, nutrition scientist, British Nutrition Foundation, said “one of the strengths of this new study is the trial design and the number of people who were recruited compared to many of the previous trials to date.”

However, Dr. Steenson also pointed to the prior Chinese research as evidence that the inconsistencies across studies highlight the need for larger and longer trials, with cardiovascular as well as weight-loss endpoints.

Still, Dr. Steenson said, “For individuals who may find that this pattern of eating fits better with their lifestyle and preferences, time-restricted feeding is one option for reducing overall calorie intake that might be a suitable approach for some. Ultimately, it is about finding the best approach to moderate calorie intake that works for each person, as successful and sustained weight loss is about ensuring the diet is feasible to follow in the long-term.”
 

Differences in weight loss, diastolic BP, but not all measures

The study population included 90 adults seen at the Weight Loss Medicine clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between August 2018 and December 2019. Participants had a body mass index of 30-60 kg/m², and none had diabetes. 

They were randomized to eTRE with the 7 AM to PM eating window or a control schedule with eating across 12 hours or more, mimicking U.S. median mealtimes, at least 6 days a week. All participants received 30-minute weight-loss counseling sessions at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, and 10 and were advised to follow a diet of 500 kcal/day below their resting energy expenditure and exercise 75-150 minutes per week.

The eTRE group adhered with their schedule a mean of 6 days per week, lower than the 6.3 days among controls (P = .03), and adherence declined by about 0.4 days per week in the eTRE group over the 14 weeks (P = .001).  

At 14 weeks, both the eTRE group and controls had lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight, at –6.3 kg and –4.0 kg, respectively, but the –2.3 kg difference was significant (P = .002).

However, there was no difference in absolute fat loss (P = .09) or ratio of fat loss to weight loss (P = .43). There were also no significant differences in changes in other body composition parameters, including visceral fat and waist circumference.

Diastolic blood pressure was lowered by an additional 4 mmHg in the eTRE group, compared with controls at 14 weeks (P = .04), but there were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, glucose, A1c levels, insulin levels, measures of insulin resistance, or plasma lipids.

There were no differences between the two groups in self-reported physical activity, energy intake, or dietary macronutrient composition either. However, weight-loss modeling in 77 participants with at least two weight measurements indicated that the eTRE group reduced their intake by about 214 kcal/day, compared with controls (P = .04).

Those in the eTRE group also showed greater improvements in measures of mood disturbance, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and depression-dejection. Other mood and sleep endpoints were similar between groups.

In a secondary analysis of just the 59 participants who completed the study, eTRE was also more effective at reducing body fat (P = .047) and trunk fat (P = .03).

About 41% of the eTRE completers planned to continue the practice after the study concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Jamshed has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhasin has reported receiving grants to his institution for research on which Dr. Bhasin is the principal investigator from AbbVie and MIB, receiving personal fees from OPKO and Aditum and holding equity interest in FPT and XYOne. Dr. Steenson has declared funding in support of the British Nutrition Foundation that comes from a range of sources.

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

Time-restricted eating during the earlier part of the day (eTRE) may promote weight loss and reduce blood pressure, new findings suggest.

Previous studies have produced mixed results regarding the weight-loss potential for intermittent fasting, the practice of alternating eating with extended fasting, and the “time-restricted eating” format, where eating is restricted to a specific, often 10-hour, time window during the day.

In a new randomized clinical trial of 90 people with obesity in which that time window was 7 AM through 3 PM, so 8 hours long, researchers report that “eTRE was more effective for losing weight and lowering diastolic blood pressure than was eating over a period of 12 or more hours at 14 weeks. The eTRE intervention may therefore be an effective treatment for both obesity and hypertension.” The study, by Humaira Jamshed, PhD, of the department of nutrition sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues, was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Shalender Bhasin, MBBS, points out that the study findings differ from those of a previous trial published in April of 139 adults conducted in China, which did not find a significant weight loss benefit with TRE versus ad lib eating.

“The scientific premise and the preclinical data of the effects of TRE are promising, but the inconsistency among studies renders it difficult to draw strong inferences from these well-conducted but relatively small trials,” notes Dr. Bhasin, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
 

Need for larger and longer trials of TRE

Dr. Bhasin says – and the study authors also acknowledge – that much larger randomized clinical trials of longer duration are needed “to comprehensively evaluate the hypothesized benefits and risks of long-term TRE of calorically restricted diets in adults.”

Commenting on the study for the U.K. Science Media Centre, Simon Steenson, PhD, nutrition scientist, British Nutrition Foundation, said “one of the strengths of this new study is the trial design and the number of people who were recruited compared to many of the previous trials to date.”

However, Dr. Steenson also pointed to the prior Chinese research as evidence that the inconsistencies across studies highlight the need for larger and longer trials, with cardiovascular as well as weight-loss endpoints.

Still, Dr. Steenson said, “For individuals who may find that this pattern of eating fits better with their lifestyle and preferences, time-restricted feeding is one option for reducing overall calorie intake that might be a suitable approach for some. Ultimately, it is about finding the best approach to moderate calorie intake that works for each person, as successful and sustained weight loss is about ensuring the diet is feasible to follow in the long-term.”
 

Differences in weight loss, diastolic BP, but not all measures

The study population included 90 adults seen at the Weight Loss Medicine clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between August 2018 and December 2019. Participants had a body mass index of 30-60 kg/m², and none had diabetes. 

They were randomized to eTRE with the 7 AM to PM eating window or a control schedule with eating across 12 hours or more, mimicking U.S. median mealtimes, at least 6 days a week. All participants received 30-minute weight-loss counseling sessions at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, and 10 and were advised to follow a diet of 500 kcal/day below their resting energy expenditure and exercise 75-150 minutes per week.

The eTRE group adhered with their schedule a mean of 6 days per week, lower than the 6.3 days among controls (P = .03), and adherence declined by about 0.4 days per week in the eTRE group over the 14 weeks (P = .001).  

At 14 weeks, both the eTRE group and controls had lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight, at –6.3 kg and –4.0 kg, respectively, but the –2.3 kg difference was significant (P = .002).

However, there was no difference in absolute fat loss (P = .09) or ratio of fat loss to weight loss (P = .43). There were also no significant differences in changes in other body composition parameters, including visceral fat and waist circumference.

Diastolic blood pressure was lowered by an additional 4 mmHg in the eTRE group, compared with controls at 14 weeks (P = .04), but there were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, glucose, A1c levels, insulin levels, measures of insulin resistance, or plasma lipids.

There were no differences between the two groups in self-reported physical activity, energy intake, or dietary macronutrient composition either. However, weight-loss modeling in 77 participants with at least two weight measurements indicated that the eTRE group reduced their intake by about 214 kcal/day, compared with controls (P = .04).

Those in the eTRE group also showed greater improvements in measures of mood disturbance, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and depression-dejection. Other mood and sleep endpoints were similar between groups.

In a secondary analysis of just the 59 participants who completed the study, eTRE was also more effective at reducing body fat (P = .047) and trunk fat (P = .03).

About 41% of the eTRE completers planned to continue the practice after the study concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Jamshed has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhasin has reported receiving grants to his institution for research on which Dr. Bhasin is the principal investigator from AbbVie and MIB, receiving personal fees from OPKO and Aditum and holding equity interest in FPT and XYOne. Dr. Steenson has declared funding in support of the British Nutrition Foundation that comes from a range of sources.

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

Time-restricted eating during the earlier part of the day (eTRE) may promote weight loss and reduce blood pressure, new findings suggest.

Previous studies have produced mixed results regarding the weight-loss potential for intermittent fasting, the practice of alternating eating with extended fasting, and the “time-restricted eating” format, where eating is restricted to a specific, often 10-hour, time window during the day.

In a new randomized clinical trial of 90 people with obesity in which that time window was 7 AM through 3 PM, so 8 hours long, researchers report that “eTRE was more effective for losing weight and lowering diastolic blood pressure than was eating over a period of 12 or more hours at 14 weeks. The eTRE intervention may therefore be an effective treatment for both obesity and hypertension.” The study, by Humaira Jamshed, PhD, of the department of nutrition sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues, was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Shalender Bhasin, MBBS, points out that the study findings differ from those of a previous trial published in April of 139 adults conducted in China, which did not find a significant weight loss benefit with TRE versus ad lib eating.

“The scientific premise and the preclinical data of the effects of TRE are promising, but the inconsistency among studies renders it difficult to draw strong inferences from these well-conducted but relatively small trials,” notes Dr. Bhasin, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
 

Need for larger and longer trials of TRE

Dr. Bhasin says – and the study authors also acknowledge – that much larger randomized clinical trials of longer duration are needed “to comprehensively evaluate the hypothesized benefits and risks of long-term TRE of calorically restricted diets in adults.”

Commenting on the study for the U.K. Science Media Centre, Simon Steenson, PhD, nutrition scientist, British Nutrition Foundation, said “one of the strengths of this new study is the trial design and the number of people who were recruited compared to many of the previous trials to date.”

However, Dr. Steenson also pointed to the prior Chinese research as evidence that the inconsistencies across studies highlight the need for larger and longer trials, with cardiovascular as well as weight-loss endpoints.

Still, Dr. Steenson said, “For individuals who may find that this pattern of eating fits better with their lifestyle and preferences, time-restricted feeding is one option for reducing overall calorie intake that might be a suitable approach for some. Ultimately, it is about finding the best approach to moderate calorie intake that works for each person, as successful and sustained weight loss is about ensuring the diet is feasible to follow in the long-term.”
 

Differences in weight loss, diastolic BP, but not all measures

The study population included 90 adults seen at the Weight Loss Medicine clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between August 2018 and December 2019. Participants had a body mass index of 30-60 kg/m², and none had diabetes. 

They were randomized to eTRE with the 7 AM to PM eating window or a control schedule with eating across 12 hours or more, mimicking U.S. median mealtimes, at least 6 days a week. All participants received 30-minute weight-loss counseling sessions at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, and 10 and were advised to follow a diet of 500 kcal/day below their resting energy expenditure and exercise 75-150 minutes per week.

The eTRE group adhered with their schedule a mean of 6 days per week, lower than the 6.3 days among controls (P = .03), and adherence declined by about 0.4 days per week in the eTRE group over the 14 weeks (P = .001).  

At 14 weeks, both the eTRE group and controls had lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight, at –6.3 kg and –4.0 kg, respectively, but the –2.3 kg difference was significant (P = .002).

However, there was no difference in absolute fat loss (P = .09) or ratio of fat loss to weight loss (P = .43). There were also no significant differences in changes in other body composition parameters, including visceral fat and waist circumference.

Diastolic blood pressure was lowered by an additional 4 mmHg in the eTRE group, compared with controls at 14 weeks (P = .04), but there were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, glucose, A1c levels, insulin levels, measures of insulin resistance, or plasma lipids.

There were no differences between the two groups in self-reported physical activity, energy intake, or dietary macronutrient composition either. However, weight-loss modeling in 77 participants with at least two weight measurements indicated that the eTRE group reduced their intake by about 214 kcal/day, compared with controls (P = .04).

Those in the eTRE group also showed greater improvements in measures of mood disturbance, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and depression-dejection. Other mood and sleep endpoints were similar between groups.

In a secondary analysis of just the 59 participants who completed the study, eTRE was also more effective at reducing body fat (P = .047) and trunk fat (P = .03).

About 41% of the eTRE completers planned to continue the practice after the study concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Jamshed has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhasin has reported receiving grants to his institution for research on which Dr. Bhasin is the principal investigator from AbbVie and MIB, receiving personal fees from OPKO and Aditum and holding equity interest in FPT and XYOne. Dr. Steenson has declared funding in support of the British Nutrition Foundation that comes from a range of sources.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

Emerging evidence is shedding light on the common underlying mechanisms contributing to the overlapping clinical phenomena of “long COVID,” myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFSME), speakers presented data showing similar pathophysiologic abnormalities in people with systemic symptoms associated with ME/CFS who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not, including individuals whose illness preceded the COVID-19 pandemic.

Core clinical diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for 6 months or longer, postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described by patients as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance that are frequent and severe.

Long COVID has been defined in several different ways using different terminology. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, defines “post-COVID conditions” as those continuing four or more weeks beyond first symptoms. The World Health Organization’s clinical case definition of “post COVID-19 condition” includes otherwise unexplained symptoms 3 months from COVID-19 onset and lasting longer than 2 months.

Both ME/CFS and long COVID commonly involve numerous symptoms beyond the defining ones, affecting nearly every organ system in the body, including systemic, neurocognitive, endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal, with wide variation among individuals. Autonomic dysfunction is common to both conditions, particularly postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

“My way of understanding these illnesses is that they’re not just multisystem illnesses, but all these interactive systems that lean on each other are dysregulated. … I would say that a very common underlying mediator of both ME/CFS and long COVID is autonomic dysfunction, and it presents as POTS,” Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., told this news organization.

Dr. Klimas, who is also director of Clinical Immunology Research at the Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, added that “if basic bioenergetics are disrupted and in an oxidative-stress state [then] they have downregulated energy production at the cellular level, which seems to be the case in ME/CFS and now in long COVID.”
 

New ICD-10 codes better characterize the syndromes

New ICD-10 codes for 2023, being implemented on Oct. 1, will enable clinicians to better document all of these interrelated conditions.

Under the existing G93.3, Postviral and related fatigue syndromes, there will now be:

• G93.31 – Postviral fatigue syndrome.
• G93.32 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (and the separate terms).
• G93.39 – Other postinfection and related fatigue syndromes.

The old R53.82, “Chronic fatigue, unspecified” code now excludes all of the above conditions.

The additional code U09.9 for “post COVID-19 condition, unspecified,” may also be used if applicable.

In addition, a new code for POTS, G90.A, which wasn’t previously mentioned in ICD-10, may also be used starting Oct. 1.

Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, advises using all applicable codes for a given patient. “If a patient came into my office with long COVID and met criteria for ME/CFS, we would code both, and also any other syndrome criteria that they may meet, such as POTS or fibromyalgia.

“If people use the codes appropriately, then you can understand the overlap better. It increases the likelihood of reimbursement, creates a more accurate medical record for the patient, and provides them with a better tool should they require disability benefits.”

Dr. Bateman advises in-office orthostatic evaluation for all patients with this symptom constellation, using a passive standing evaluation such as the 10-minute NASA Lean test.

“Clinicians should take the time to do orthostatic testing in these patients because it provides objective markers and will help lead us to potential interventions to help improve people’s function.”

The Bateman Horne center offers clinician resources on management of ME/CFS and related conditions.
 

How common is ME/CFS after COVID-19?

According to one published meta-analysis, the global prevalence of “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2,” defined by any symptom, is about 43% of patients overall following infection, and 49% at 120 days. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by memory problems. As of March 22, the World Health Organization estimated that there have been more than 470 million COVID-19 cases, which would give a figure of about 200 million people who are experiencing a wide range of long-COVID symptoms. 

On the final day of the IACFSME conference, Luis Nacul, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, presented several sets of data from his group and others aiming to determine the proportion of individuals who develop symptoms suggestive of ME/CFS following a COVID-19 infection.   

Among a cohort of 88 adults hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first pandemic wave in 2020 and followed up in the respiratory clinic, rates of reported generalized fatigue were 67% at 3 months and 59.5% at 6 months. Substantial fatigue (that is, present most days and affecting activity levels) were reported by 16% at 3 months and 7% at 6 months. “This should represent in principle the maximum prevalence of cases who would meet the criteria for ME/CFS,” Dr. Nacul said.

Baseline age was indirectly associated with fatigue at 3 and 6 months, while the number of comorbidities a patient had was directly associated. Comorbidities also predicted severe fatigue at 3 months, but the numbers were too small for assessment at 6 months.

Studies involving nonhospitalized patients suggested lower rates. One meta-analysis showed 1-year rates of fatigue in 32% and cognitive impairment in 22%. Another showed very similar rates, reporting fatigue in 28% and memory/concentration difficulties in 18%-19%.   

Dr. Nacul cautioned that these figures are likely overestimates since many of the study populations are taken from respiratory or long-COVID clinics. “The evidence on ‘post-COVID fatigue syndrome’ or ME/CFS following COVID is still evolving. There is a huge need for studies looking more closely at cases meeting well-defined ME/CFS criteria. This unfortunately hasn’t been done for most studies.”
 

Immune system dysfunction appears to underlie many cases

In a keynote address during the conference, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., pointed out that long COVID and ME/CFS are among many unexplained postacute infection syndromes associated with a long list of viral pathogens, including Ebola, the prior SARS viruses, Epstein-Barr virus, and Dengue, as well as nonviral pathogens such as Coxiella burnetii (Q fever syndrome) and Borrelia (posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome).

Dr. Iwasaki cited a recent Nature Medicine review article that she coauthored on this topic with an ME/CFS patient, noting: “We really need to understand why some people are failing to recover from these types of diseases.”

Emerging evidence supports four different hypotheses regarding pathogenesis: viral reservoir/viral pathogen-associated molecular pattern molecules, autoimmunity, dysbiosis/viral reactivation, and tissue damage

“Right now, it’s too early to exclude or make any conclusions about these. We need to have an open mind to dissect these various possibilities,” she said.

Two speakers reported findings of immune dysregulation in both ME/CFS and long COVID. Wakiro Sato, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo, reported that anti–G-protein coupled receptor antibodies were found in 33 (55%) of 60 patients with long COVID, and more than 40% had peripheral immune cell profile abnormalities. These findings were similar to those found in patients with ME/CFS, published by Sato’s team (Brain Behav Immun. 2021 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.023) and other researchers in Germany.  

Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, presented data for an analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 26 donors with ME/CFS (8 with long COVID) and 24 healthy controls. In both patient groups, they found altered expression of inflammatory markers and decreases in CD8 T-cell number and function. The patients with long COVID showed evidence of sustained activation of both T-cell populations with increased CD38 and HLA-DR, associated with a compensatory increased frequency of activated CD4+CD8+ T cells.

“These results are consistent with immune dysregulation associated with overactivation and exhaustion of CD8 T cells, as observed in chronic viral infections and tumor environments,” Dr. Selin said.
 

ME/CFS and long COVID ‘frighteningly similar, if not identical’

Data for a different system derangement in long COVID and ME/CFS, the pathophysiology of exercise intolerance, were presented in another keynote talk by David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston. He has conducted invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with ME/CFS and patients with long COVID.

Previously, Dr. Systrom and his team found that patients with ME/CFS have distinct defects in both ventricular filling pressure and oxygen extraction from the muscles. Neither of those are features of deconditioning, which is often blamed for exercise intolerance in people with ME/CFS. Rather, the major defect in deconditioning is decreased stroke volume and cardiac output. In ME/CFS patients, he found supranormal pulmonary blood flow, compared with VO₂ max, suggesting peripheral left-to-right shunting.

In addition, Dr. Systrom and colleagues found that a large proportion of ME/CFS patients with these peripheral vascular defects also have biopsy-demonstrated small-fiber neuropathy, suggesting that acute exercise intolerance is related to underlying autonomic nervous system dysfunction.

In Dr. Systrom and colleagues’ long COVID study, invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in 10 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 at least 6 months prior and did not have cardiopulmonary disease had significantly revealed reduced peak exercise aerobic capacity (VO₂ max), compared with 10 age- and sex-matched controls. The reduction in peak VO₂ was associated with impaired systemic oxygen extraction, compared with the controls, despite a preserved peak cardiac index.

The long-COVID patients also showed greater ventilatory inefficiency, which “is entirely related to hyperventilation, not intrinsic lung disease,” Dr. Systrom said, adding that while there may be subsets of patients with interstitial lung disease after acute respiratory distress syndrome, these patients didn’t have that. “This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” Dr. Systrom said.  

In a third study for which Dr. Systrom was a coauthor, published in Annals of Neurology, multisystem involvement was found in nine patients following mild COVID-19 infection, using standardized autonomic assessments including Valsalva maneuver, sudomotor and tilt tests, and skin biopsies for small-fiber neuropathy. The findings included cerebrovascular dysregulation with persistent cerebral arteriolar vasoconstriction, small-fiber neuropathy and related dysautonomia, respiratory dysregulation, and chronic inflammation.

Dr. Systrom’s conclusion: “Dyspnea and hyperventilation are common in ME/CFS and long COVID and there is significant overlap with POTS.”

Dr. Bateman disclosed that she is conducting research for Terra Biological. Dr. Systrom said he is conducting research for Astellas.

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

Emerging evidence is shedding light on the common underlying mechanisms contributing to the overlapping clinical phenomena of “long COVID,” myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFSME), speakers presented data showing similar pathophysiologic abnormalities in people with systemic symptoms associated with ME/CFS who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not, including individuals whose illness preceded the COVID-19 pandemic.

Core clinical diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for 6 months or longer, postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described by patients as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance that are frequent and severe.

Long COVID has been defined in several different ways using different terminology. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, defines “post-COVID conditions” as those continuing four or more weeks beyond first symptoms. The World Health Organization’s clinical case definition of “post COVID-19 condition” includes otherwise unexplained symptoms 3 months from COVID-19 onset and lasting longer than 2 months.

Both ME/CFS and long COVID commonly involve numerous symptoms beyond the defining ones, affecting nearly every organ system in the body, including systemic, neurocognitive, endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal, with wide variation among individuals. Autonomic dysfunction is common to both conditions, particularly postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

“My way of understanding these illnesses is that they’re not just multisystem illnesses, but all these interactive systems that lean on each other are dysregulated. … I would say that a very common underlying mediator of both ME/CFS and long COVID is autonomic dysfunction, and it presents as POTS,” Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., told this news organization.

Dr. Klimas, who is also director of Clinical Immunology Research at the Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, added that “if basic bioenergetics are disrupted and in an oxidative-stress state [then] they have downregulated energy production at the cellular level, which seems to be the case in ME/CFS and now in long COVID.”
 

New ICD-10 codes better characterize the syndromes

New ICD-10 codes for 2023, being implemented on Oct. 1, will enable clinicians to better document all of these interrelated conditions.

Under the existing G93.3, Postviral and related fatigue syndromes, there will now be:

• G93.31 – Postviral fatigue syndrome.
• G93.32 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (and the separate terms).
• G93.39 – Other postinfection and related fatigue syndromes.

The old R53.82, “Chronic fatigue, unspecified” code now excludes all of the above conditions.

The additional code U09.9 for “post COVID-19 condition, unspecified,” may also be used if applicable.

In addition, a new code for POTS, G90.A, which wasn’t previously mentioned in ICD-10, may also be used starting Oct. 1.

Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, advises using all applicable codes for a given patient. “If a patient came into my office with long COVID and met criteria for ME/CFS, we would code both, and also any other syndrome criteria that they may meet, such as POTS or fibromyalgia.

“If people use the codes appropriately, then you can understand the overlap better. It increases the likelihood of reimbursement, creates a more accurate medical record for the patient, and provides them with a better tool should they require disability benefits.”

Dr. Bateman advises in-office orthostatic evaluation for all patients with this symptom constellation, using a passive standing evaluation such as the 10-minute NASA Lean test.

“Clinicians should take the time to do orthostatic testing in these patients because it provides objective markers and will help lead us to potential interventions to help improve people’s function.”

The Bateman Horne center offers clinician resources on management of ME/CFS and related conditions.
 

How common is ME/CFS after COVID-19?

According to one published meta-analysis, the global prevalence of “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2,” defined by any symptom, is about 43% of patients overall following infection, and 49% at 120 days. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by memory problems. As of March 22, the World Health Organization estimated that there have been more than 470 million COVID-19 cases, which would give a figure of about 200 million people who are experiencing a wide range of long-COVID symptoms. 

On the final day of the IACFSME conference, Luis Nacul, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, presented several sets of data from his group and others aiming to determine the proportion of individuals who develop symptoms suggestive of ME/CFS following a COVID-19 infection.   

Among a cohort of 88 adults hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first pandemic wave in 2020 and followed up in the respiratory clinic, rates of reported generalized fatigue were 67% at 3 months and 59.5% at 6 months. Substantial fatigue (that is, present most days and affecting activity levels) were reported by 16% at 3 months and 7% at 6 months. “This should represent in principle the maximum prevalence of cases who would meet the criteria for ME/CFS,” Dr. Nacul said.

Baseline age was indirectly associated with fatigue at 3 and 6 months, while the number of comorbidities a patient had was directly associated. Comorbidities also predicted severe fatigue at 3 months, but the numbers were too small for assessment at 6 months.

Studies involving nonhospitalized patients suggested lower rates. One meta-analysis showed 1-year rates of fatigue in 32% and cognitive impairment in 22%. Another showed very similar rates, reporting fatigue in 28% and memory/concentration difficulties in 18%-19%.   

Dr. Nacul cautioned that these figures are likely overestimates since many of the study populations are taken from respiratory or long-COVID clinics. “The evidence on ‘post-COVID fatigue syndrome’ or ME/CFS following COVID is still evolving. There is a huge need for studies looking more closely at cases meeting well-defined ME/CFS criteria. This unfortunately hasn’t been done for most studies.”
 

Immune system dysfunction appears to underlie many cases

In a keynote address during the conference, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., pointed out that long COVID and ME/CFS are among many unexplained postacute infection syndromes associated with a long list of viral pathogens, including Ebola, the prior SARS viruses, Epstein-Barr virus, and Dengue, as well as nonviral pathogens such as Coxiella burnetii (Q fever syndrome) and Borrelia (posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome).

Dr. Iwasaki cited a recent Nature Medicine review article that she coauthored on this topic with an ME/CFS patient, noting: “We really need to understand why some people are failing to recover from these types of diseases.”

Emerging evidence supports four different hypotheses regarding pathogenesis: viral reservoir/viral pathogen-associated molecular pattern molecules, autoimmunity, dysbiosis/viral reactivation, and tissue damage

“Right now, it’s too early to exclude or make any conclusions about these. We need to have an open mind to dissect these various possibilities,” she said.

Two speakers reported findings of immune dysregulation in both ME/CFS and long COVID. Wakiro Sato, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo, reported that anti–G-protein coupled receptor antibodies were found in 33 (55%) of 60 patients with long COVID, and more than 40% had peripheral immune cell profile abnormalities. These findings were similar to those found in patients with ME/CFS, published by Sato’s team (Brain Behav Immun. 2021 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.023) and other researchers in Germany.  

Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, presented data for an analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 26 donors with ME/CFS (8 with long COVID) and 24 healthy controls. In both patient groups, they found altered expression of inflammatory markers and decreases in CD8 T-cell number and function. The patients with long COVID showed evidence of sustained activation of both T-cell populations with increased CD38 and HLA-DR, associated with a compensatory increased frequency of activated CD4+CD8+ T cells.

“These results are consistent with immune dysregulation associated with overactivation and exhaustion of CD8 T cells, as observed in chronic viral infections and tumor environments,” Dr. Selin said.
 

ME/CFS and long COVID ‘frighteningly similar, if not identical’

Data for a different system derangement in long COVID and ME/CFS, the pathophysiology of exercise intolerance, were presented in another keynote talk by David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston. He has conducted invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with ME/CFS and patients with long COVID.

Previously, Dr. Systrom and his team found that patients with ME/CFS have distinct defects in both ventricular filling pressure and oxygen extraction from the muscles. Neither of those are features of deconditioning, which is often blamed for exercise intolerance in people with ME/CFS. Rather, the major defect in deconditioning is decreased stroke volume and cardiac output. In ME/CFS patients, he found supranormal pulmonary blood flow, compared with VO₂ max, suggesting peripheral left-to-right shunting.

In addition, Dr. Systrom and colleagues found that a large proportion of ME/CFS patients with these peripheral vascular defects also have biopsy-demonstrated small-fiber neuropathy, suggesting that acute exercise intolerance is related to underlying autonomic nervous system dysfunction.

In Dr. Systrom and colleagues’ long COVID study, invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in 10 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 at least 6 months prior and did not have cardiopulmonary disease had significantly revealed reduced peak exercise aerobic capacity (VO₂ max), compared with 10 age- and sex-matched controls. The reduction in peak VO₂ was associated with impaired systemic oxygen extraction, compared with the controls, despite a preserved peak cardiac index.

The long-COVID patients also showed greater ventilatory inefficiency, which “is entirely related to hyperventilation, not intrinsic lung disease,” Dr. Systrom said, adding that while there may be subsets of patients with interstitial lung disease after acute respiratory distress syndrome, these patients didn’t have that. “This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” Dr. Systrom said.  

In a third study for which Dr. Systrom was a coauthor, published in Annals of Neurology, multisystem involvement was found in nine patients following mild COVID-19 infection, using standardized autonomic assessments including Valsalva maneuver, sudomotor and tilt tests, and skin biopsies for small-fiber neuropathy. The findings included cerebrovascular dysregulation with persistent cerebral arteriolar vasoconstriction, small-fiber neuropathy and related dysautonomia, respiratory dysregulation, and chronic inflammation.

Dr. Systrom’s conclusion: “Dyspnea and hyperventilation are common in ME/CFS and long COVID and there is significant overlap with POTS.”

Dr. Bateman disclosed that she is conducting research for Terra Biological. Dr. Systrom said he is conducting research for Astellas.

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

Emerging evidence is shedding light on the common underlying mechanisms contributing to the overlapping clinical phenomena of “long COVID,” myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFSME), speakers presented data showing similar pathophysiologic abnormalities in people with systemic symptoms associated with ME/CFS who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not, including individuals whose illness preceded the COVID-19 pandemic.

Core clinical diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for 6 months or longer, postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described by patients as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance that are frequent and severe.

Long COVID has been defined in several different ways using different terminology. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, defines “post-COVID conditions” as those continuing four or more weeks beyond first symptoms. The World Health Organization’s clinical case definition of “post COVID-19 condition” includes otherwise unexplained symptoms 3 months from COVID-19 onset and lasting longer than 2 months.

Both ME/CFS and long COVID commonly involve numerous symptoms beyond the defining ones, affecting nearly every organ system in the body, including systemic, neurocognitive, endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal, with wide variation among individuals. Autonomic dysfunction is common to both conditions, particularly postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

“My way of understanding these illnesses is that they’re not just multisystem illnesses, but all these interactive systems that lean on each other are dysregulated. … I would say that a very common underlying mediator of both ME/CFS and long COVID is autonomic dysfunction, and it presents as POTS,” Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., told this news organization.

Dr. Klimas, who is also director of Clinical Immunology Research at the Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, added that “if basic bioenergetics are disrupted and in an oxidative-stress state [then] they have downregulated energy production at the cellular level, which seems to be the case in ME/CFS and now in long COVID.”
 

New ICD-10 codes better characterize the syndromes

New ICD-10 codes for 2023, being implemented on Oct. 1, will enable clinicians to better document all of these interrelated conditions.

Under the existing G93.3, Postviral and related fatigue syndromes, there will now be:

• G93.31 – Postviral fatigue syndrome.
• G93.32 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (and the separate terms).
• G93.39 – Other postinfection and related fatigue syndromes.

The old R53.82, “Chronic fatigue, unspecified” code now excludes all of the above conditions.

The additional code U09.9 for “post COVID-19 condition, unspecified,” may also be used if applicable.

In addition, a new code for POTS, G90.A, which wasn’t previously mentioned in ICD-10, may also be used starting Oct. 1.

Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, advises using all applicable codes for a given patient. “If a patient came into my office with long COVID and met criteria for ME/CFS, we would code both, and also any other syndrome criteria that they may meet, such as POTS or fibromyalgia.

“If people use the codes appropriately, then you can understand the overlap better. It increases the likelihood of reimbursement, creates a more accurate medical record for the patient, and provides them with a better tool should they require disability benefits.”

Dr. Bateman advises in-office orthostatic evaluation for all patients with this symptom constellation, using a passive standing evaluation such as the 10-minute NASA Lean test.

“Clinicians should take the time to do orthostatic testing in these patients because it provides objective markers and will help lead us to potential interventions to help improve people’s function.”

The Bateman Horne center offers clinician resources on management of ME/CFS and related conditions.
 

How common is ME/CFS after COVID-19?

According to one published meta-analysis, the global prevalence of “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2,” defined by any symptom, is about 43% of patients overall following infection, and 49% at 120 days. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom, followed by memory problems. As of March 22, the World Health Organization estimated that there have been more than 470 million COVID-19 cases, which would give a figure of about 200 million people who are experiencing a wide range of long-COVID symptoms. 

On the final day of the IACFSME conference, Luis Nacul, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, presented several sets of data from his group and others aiming to determine the proportion of individuals who develop symptoms suggestive of ME/CFS following a COVID-19 infection.   

Among a cohort of 88 adults hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first pandemic wave in 2020 and followed up in the respiratory clinic, rates of reported generalized fatigue were 67% at 3 months and 59.5% at 6 months. Substantial fatigue (that is, present most days and affecting activity levels) were reported by 16% at 3 months and 7% at 6 months. “This should represent in principle the maximum prevalence of cases who would meet the criteria for ME/CFS,” Dr. Nacul said.

Baseline age was indirectly associated with fatigue at 3 and 6 months, while the number of comorbidities a patient had was directly associated. Comorbidities also predicted severe fatigue at 3 months, but the numbers were too small for assessment at 6 months.

Studies involving nonhospitalized patients suggested lower rates. One meta-analysis showed 1-year rates of fatigue in 32% and cognitive impairment in 22%. Another showed very similar rates, reporting fatigue in 28% and memory/concentration difficulties in 18%-19%.   

Dr. Nacul cautioned that these figures are likely overestimates since many of the study populations are taken from respiratory or long-COVID clinics. “The evidence on ‘post-COVID fatigue syndrome’ or ME/CFS following COVID is still evolving. There is a huge need for studies looking more closely at cases meeting well-defined ME/CFS criteria. This unfortunately hasn’t been done for most studies.”
 

Immune system dysfunction appears to underlie many cases

In a keynote address during the conference, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., pointed out that long COVID and ME/CFS are among many unexplained postacute infection syndromes associated with a long list of viral pathogens, including Ebola, the prior SARS viruses, Epstein-Barr virus, and Dengue, as well as nonviral pathogens such as Coxiella burnetii (Q fever syndrome) and Borrelia (posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome).

Dr. Iwasaki cited a recent Nature Medicine review article that she coauthored on this topic with an ME/CFS patient, noting: “We really need to understand why some people are failing to recover from these types of diseases.”

Emerging evidence supports four different hypotheses regarding pathogenesis: viral reservoir/viral pathogen-associated molecular pattern molecules, autoimmunity, dysbiosis/viral reactivation, and tissue damage

“Right now, it’s too early to exclude or make any conclusions about these. We need to have an open mind to dissect these various possibilities,” she said.

Two speakers reported findings of immune dysregulation in both ME/CFS and long COVID. Wakiro Sato, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo, reported that anti–G-protein coupled receptor antibodies were found in 33 (55%) of 60 patients with long COVID, and more than 40% had peripheral immune cell profile abnormalities. These findings were similar to those found in patients with ME/CFS, published by Sato’s team (Brain Behav Immun. 2021 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.023) and other researchers in Germany.  

Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, presented data for an analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 26 donors with ME/CFS (8 with long COVID) and 24 healthy controls. In both patient groups, they found altered expression of inflammatory markers and decreases in CD8 T-cell number and function. The patients with long COVID showed evidence of sustained activation of both T-cell populations with increased CD38 and HLA-DR, associated with a compensatory increased frequency of activated CD4+CD8+ T cells.

“These results are consistent with immune dysregulation associated with overactivation and exhaustion of CD8 T cells, as observed in chronic viral infections and tumor environments,” Dr. Selin said.
 

ME/CFS and long COVID ‘frighteningly similar, if not identical’

Data for a different system derangement in long COVID and ME/CFS, the pathophysiology of exercise intolerance, were presented in another keynote talk by David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston. He has conducted invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with ME/CFS and patients with long COVID.

Previously, Dr. Systrom and his team found that patients with ME/CFS have distinct defects in both ventricular filling pressure and oxygen extraction from the muscles. Neither of those are features of deconditioning, which is often blamed for exercise intolerance in people with ME/CFS. Rather, the major defect in deconditioning is decreased stroke volume and cardiac output. In ME/CFS patients, he found supranormal pulmonary blood flow, compared with VO₂ max, suggesting peripheral left-to-right shunting.

In addition, Dr. Systrom and colleagues found that a large proportion of ME/CFS patients with these peripheral vascular defects also have biopsy-demonstrated small-fiber neuropathy, suggesting that acute exercise intolerance is related to underlying autonomic nervous system dysfunction.

In Dr. Systrom and colleagues’ long COVID study, invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing in 10 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 at least 6 months prior and did not have cardiopulmonary disease had significantly revealed reduced peak exercise aerobic capacity (VO₂ max), compared with 10 age- and sex-matched controls. The reduction in peak VO₂ was associated with impaired systemic oxygen extraction, compared with the controls, despite a preserved peak cardiac index.

The long-COVID patients also showed greater ventilatory inefficiency, which “is entirely related to hyperventilation, not intrinsic lung disease,” Dr. Systrom said, adding that while there may be subsets of patients with interstitial lung disease after acute respiratory distress syndrome, these patients didn’t have that. “This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” Dr. Systrom said.  

In a third study for which Dr. Systrom was a coauthor, published in Annals of Neurology, multisystem involvement was found in nine patients following mild COVID-19 infection, using standardized autonomic assessments including Valsalva maneuver, sudomotor and tilt tests, and skin biopsies for small-fiber neuropathy. The findings included cerebrovascular dysregulation with persistent cerebral arteriolar vasoconstriction, small-fiber neuropathy and related dysautonomia, respiratory dysregulation, and chronic inflammation.

Dr. Systrom’s conclusion: “Dyspnea and hyperventilation are common in ME/CFS and long COVID and there is significant overlap with POTS.”

Dr. Bateman disclosed that she is conducting research for Terra Biological. Dr. Systrom said he is conducting research for Astellas.

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

A variety of treatments, most already commercially available, are under investigation for treating the constellation of overlapping symptoms associated with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), “long COVID,” and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, speakers presented data for a variety of approaches to ease symptoms common across postviral conditions, such as extreme fatigue, postexertional malaise (“crash”), cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”), orthostatic intolerance including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic pain. Most of the modalities are already commercially available for other indications, although some are costly and not covered by payers for these conditions.

“Both post–acute COVID-19 syndrome and ME/CFS are forms of postinfectious viral syndromes and they have overlapping symptoms. ... In the past, patients were told ‘you have chronic fatigue syndrome but there’s nothing we can do for it.’ That certainly is not the case. There aren’t cures, but there are many management techniques to improve symptoms,” Charles W. Lapp, MD, medical director of the Hunter-Hopkins Center, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.

A current mainstay of treatment for ME/CFS – including that triggered by COVID-19 – is activity pacing, in which patients learn to stay within their “energy envelopes” in order to avoid postexertional malaise, a worsening of all symptoms with exertion. The use of “graded exercise” is no longer recommended, per U.K. and U.S. guidelines.

Data for the following approaches were presented at the IACFS/ME conference:
 

Pyridostigmine (mestinon, others)

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of muscle weakness resulting from myasthenia gravis and is available in generic form. It has previously been shown to produce significant improvement in both symptom burden and heart rate response in POTS.

At the IACFS/ME conference, David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston, summarized his group’s study in patients with ME/CFS using pyridostigmine as both a potential treatment for improving exercise capacity and a proof-of-concept that neurovascular dysregulation underlies exertional intolerance in the condition.

A total of 45 patients were randomized to 60 mg oral pyridostigmine or placebo after an invasive cardiopulmonary exercise test, and a second test performed 50 minutes later. Peak VO₂ increased after pyridostigmine but decreased after placebo (+13.3 mL/min vs. –40.2 mL/min, P < .05). Cardiac output and right atrial pressure were also significantly improved with pyridostigmine and worse with placebo.

“We suggest that treatable neurovascular dysregulation underlies acute exercise intolerance in ME/CFS. ... Pyridostigmine may be a useful repurposed off-label treatment [for] a subset of patients with exercise intolerance,” Dr. Systrom said.

Asked to comment, Dr. Lapp said: “We’ve used Mestinon for years because it helps with POTS and also with neurally mediated hypotension. Systrom is taking it to a new level because he’s shown that it increases preload to the heart.” However, he noted that it’s unclear whether the drug will help patients who don’t have POTS specifically. On the other hand, patients rarely experience side effects from the drug.

Since the generic tablets come only in 60-mg doses, and the starting dose is 30 mg three times a day, he advised cutting the tablets in half during titration up to 60 mg three times a day.
 

Oxaloacetate (benaGene)

David Lyons Kaufman, MD, of the Center for Complex Diseases, Mountain View, Calif., summarized data from his group’s recently published open-label, nonrandomized, “proof-of-concept” study on use of the commercially available nutritional supplement anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate for treating mental and physical fatigue in 76 patients with longstanding ME/CFS and 43 with long-COVID fatigue.

Oxaloacetate is a major step in the Krebs cycle within the mitochondria that are depleted in patients with ME/CFS. It is also an energy metabolite that has multiple effects in cells and mitochondria, Dr. Kaufman explained.

Doses ranging from 500 mg twice daily up to 1,000 mg three times a day were given for 6 weeks. Up to 33% of the patients with ME/CFS and up to 46.8% of the long-COVID group achieved clinical efficacy as measured by physical and mental fatigue scores, compared with just 5.9% of historical ME/CFS controls. All doses showed highly significant improvements.

The only adverse effects were occasional dyspepsia, which was avoided by taking the supplement with food, and insomnia, resolved by having them dose at breakfast and lunch, Dr. Kaufman said.

Following those preliminary data, there is now an ongoing 90-day, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 80 patients with ME/CFS using 2,000 mg anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate per day. Endpoints include multiple objective measures.

“We have a health care crisis with long COVID, and we’ve had this smoldering crisis with ME/CFS for decades that’s never been addressed. ME/CFS and long COVID, if not identical, are certainly overlapping. ... We have to pursue these translational medicine pilot studies as rapidly as possible,” Dr. Kaufman remarked.

Dr. Lapp told this news organization that it makes sense to use constituents of the Krebs cycle to improve mitochondrial function, but the problem with oxaloacetate is its cost. Dr. Kaufman mentioned that based on the preliminary trial, the therapeutic “sweet spot” appeared to be 1,000 mg twice daily. The manufacturer’s website lists the price for a single bottle of 30 250-mg capsules at $49, or $42 if purchased via a monthly subscription.

“It’s a benign drug, and it’s over the counter. I would give it to any patient who’s got a big wallet,” Dr. Lapp quipped, adding: “If they’ve got the money, they can order it tonight.”
 

Inspiritol

Inspiritol is an investigational “nebulized, inhaled, multimechanism medication designed to treat the major symptoms of respiratory distress with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and broad-spectrum antiviral and antibacterial properties. Inspiritol is composed of both endogenously produced and naturally occurring, well-tolerated biochemicals,” according to the company website.

The hypothesis, Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said at the meeting, is that “ME/CFS and long COVID-19 result from an aberrant response to an immunological trigger like infection, which results in a permanently dysregulated immune system as a result of overactivation of CD8 T cells and subsequent exhaustion.”

Inspiritol, containing five antioxidants, acts as an immune modulator to reverse the CD8 T cell exhaustion and improve symptoms. Administration by inhaler delivers it directly to the brain from the lung. It was originally designed for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma and has shown efficacy for acute COVID-19, Dr. Selin said.

In a preliminary study, four patients with ME/CFS and five with long COVID have been treated with Inspiritol for 2-15 months, and all have self-reported improved symptoms. Cough has been the only reported side effect.

The company is pursuing an Investigational New Drug Application for the product with the Food and Drug Administration and has several patents pending. Dr. Lapp called Inspiritol “very interesting,” and said that reversal of CD8 “exhaustion” also would appear to be a promising approach. However, he noted, “the problem is that we don’t know what’s in it.”
 

Stellate ganglion block

Injection of local anesthetic near the stellate ganglion to block activity of the entire cervical sympathetic chain has been used for nearly a century to treat a variety of sympathetically mediated conditions, including complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), shingles, and phantom-limb pain. More recently, it has been used in a variety of other conditions, including PTSD, Raynaud’s disease, menopausal hot flashes, and hyperhidrosis.

Insurance companies typically cover it for CRPS, neuropathic upper-extremity pain, hyperhidrosis, and Raynaud’s, said Luke Liu, MD, an anesthesiologist who is founder and chief executive officer of Alaska-based pain management company Neuroversion.

Deborah Duricka, PhD, also with Neuroversion, presented results from a now-published case series of 11 patients with long COVID who underwent stellate ganglion block by a board-certified anesthesiologist, first on one side at the level of C6, then on the contralateral side the following day.

Clinically meaningful benefits were seen in at least five of the patients in fatigue, memory problems, problems concentrating, rapid heartbeat, orthostatic intolerance, sleep problems, postexertional malaise, anxiety, and depression.

The hypothetical mechanism, she said, is that “sympathetic block prevents sympathetically driven vasoconstriction in carotid and vertebral arteries.”

Dr. Liu presented another case series of five patients with ME/CFS who underwent the procedure with ultrasound guidance, again on one side and the other side the next day. All had upper-limb autonomic issues such as Raynaud’s and/or neuropathic pain that had been refractory to more conventional treatments.

All five patients reported improvements in symptoms of ME/CFS, including energy level, cognition, pain, and postexertional malaise. One patient reported “feeling well for the first time in decades.” However, that patient relapsed after a mild viral illness 3.5 months after treatment. Some of the patients have required further treatments.

Dr. Lapp commented that, although the procedure is generally safe when performed by an experienced clinician, “Any time you do an injection like that, there’s a high risk that you could nick an artery or a vein or hit an essential nerve in the neck. That’s why it has to be done under fluoroscopy or ultrasound.”

He said he’s had a few patients undergo the procedure, mostly for CRPS, and they seem to have benefited from it. “It might increase cerebral blood flow and preload to the heart, so it might decrease ME/CFS symptoms and help with POTS as well.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Lapp said he wouldn’t consider stellate ganglion block as first-line treatment for ME/CFS or long COVID. “I think it would be for the treatment-resistant patient, when you’ve gone through all the treatments that we know and addressed all the comorbidities and they’re still not getting better.”

But, he added, it is a standard procedure. “Any pain clinic can do a stellate block.”
 

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation

Nicola Clague-Baker, PhD, a physiotherapist at the University of Liverpool (England), presented findings from an international survey of people with ME/CFS regarding their experience with transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) to manage their autonomic symptoms. The technique involves stimulation of the autonomic nervous system via the vagus nerve using electrodes applied to part of the ear. The theory is that the technique stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system and improves autonomic balance.

Two small previous trials showing benefit of vagus nerve stimulation for people with ME/CFS used more invasive and less comfortable methods of applying the stimulation rather than to the ear, Dr. Clague-Baker and colleagues noted in a poster. It has also been used successfully in treating POTS, another conference speaker noted.

A total of 131 people with ME/CFS (called simply “ME” in the United Kingdom) responded to a survey advertised on social media and websites. The majority (60%) were from the United Kingdom while the rest were from Europe, Australia, and North America. Most were female, and slightly more than half had lived with ME for 10 or more years.

The majority (72%) were still using taVNS, while 28% had stopped using it. Only 9% had used the modality for longer than a year. Respondents identified more than 30 benefits in symptoms and activities, with improvements in postexertional malaise (39%) and brain fog (37%) being the most common. One reported significant reduction in constipation.

However, respondents also mentioned more than 20 short- and long-term negatives, including headaches (15%) and long-term irritation at the site (9%). One participant reported a “big improvement in neuropathic pain, but not so much for muscles and joints.”

Overall, 80% reported that they would continue using taVNS and 67% said they would recommend it to others with ME, and 56% said that the system was mildly to very beneficial.

Dr. Lapp noted that several types of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation units with ear clips are sold online, and he’s seen them work well for migraine treatment. However, he cautioned that some patients have had side effects from the treatment, such as headaches and dizziness. “It’s putting an electrical current through your brain. In my mind, it’s another last-ditch measure.”

Dr. Lapp reported no financial disclosures.

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

A variety of treatments, most already commercially available, are under investigation for treating the constellation of overlapping symptoms associated with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), “long COVID,” and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, speakers presented data for a variety of approaches to ease symptoms common across postviral conditions, such as extreme fatigue, postexertional malaise (“crash”), cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”), orthostatic intolerance including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic pain. Most of the modalities are already commercially available for other indications, although some are costly and not covered by payers for these conditions.

“Both post–acute COVID-19 syndrome and ME/CFS are forms of postinfectious viral syndromes and they have overlapping symptoms. ... In the past, patients were told ‘you have chronic fatigue syndrome but there’s nothing we can do for it.’ That certainly is not the case. There aren’t cures, but there are many management techniques to improve symptoms,” Charles W. Lapp, MD, medical director of the Hunter-Hopkins Center, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.

A current mainstay of treatment for ME/CFS – including that triggered by COVID-19 – is activity pacing, in which patients learn to stay within their “energy envelopes” in order to avoid postexertional malaise, a worsening of all symptoms with exertion. The use of “graded exercise” is no longer recommended, per U.K. and U.S. guidelines.

Data for the following approaches were presented at the IACFS/ME conference:
 

Pyridostigmine (mestinon, others)

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of muscle weakness resulting from myasthenia gravis and is available in generic form. It has previously been shown to produce significant improvement in both symptom burden and heart rate response in POTS.

At the IACFS/ME conference, David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston, summarized his group’s study in patients with ME/CFS using pyridostigmine as both a potential treatment for improving exercise capacity and a proof-of-concept that neurovascular dysregulation underlies exertional intolerance in the condition.

A total of 45 patients were randomized to 60 mg oral pyridostigmine or placebo after an invasive cardiopulmonary exercise test, and a second test performed 50 minutes later. Peak VO₂ increased after pyridostigmine but decreased after placebo (+13.3 mL/min vs. –40.2 mL/min, P < .05). Cardiac output and right atrial pressure were also significantly improved with pyridostigmine and worse with placebo.

“We suggest that treatable neurovascular dysregulation underlies acute exercise intolerance in ME/CFS. ... Pyridostigmine may be a useful repurposed off-label treatment [for] a subset of patients with exercise intolerance,” Dr. Systrom said.

Asked to comment, Dr. Lapp said: “We’ve used Mestinon for years because it helps with POTS and also with neurally mediated hypotension. Systrom is taking it to a new level because he’s shown that it increases preload to the heart.” However, he noted that it’s unclear whether the drug will help patients who don’t have POTS specifically. On the other hand, patients rarely experience side effects from the drug.

Since the generic tablets come only in 60-mg doses, and the starting dose is 30 mg three times a day, he advised cutting the tablets in half during titration up to 60 mg three times a day.
 

Oxaloacetate (benaGene)

David Lyons Kaufman, MD, of the Center for Complex Diseases, Mountain View, Calif., summarized data from his group’s recently published open-label, nonrandomized, “proof-of-concept” study on use of the commercially available nutritional supplement anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate for treating mental and physical fatigue in 76 patients with longstanding ME/CFS and 43 with long-COVID fatigue.

Oxaloacetate is a major step in the Krebs cycle within the mitochondria that are depleted in patients with ME/CFS. It is also an energy metabolite that has multiple effects in cells and mitochondria, Dr. Kaufman explained.

Doses ranging from 500 mg twice daily up to 1,000 mg three times a day were given for 6 weeks. Up to 33% of the patients with ME/CFS and up to 46.8% of the long-COVID group achieved clinical efficacy as measured by physical and mental fatigue scores, compared with just 5.9% of historical ME/CFS controls. All doses showed highly significant improvements.

The only adverse effects were occasional dyspepsia, which was avoided by taking the supplement with food, and insomnia, resolved by having them dose at breakfast and lunch, Dr. Kaufman said.

Following those preliminary data, there is now an ongoing 90-day, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 80 patients with ME/CFS using 2,000 mg anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate per day. Endpoints include multiple objective measures.

“We have a health care crisis with long COVID, and we’ve had this smoldering crisis with ME/CFS for decades that’s never been addressed. ME/CFS and long COVID, if not identical, are certainly overlapping. ... We have to pursue these translational medicine pilot studies as rapidly as possible,” Dr. Kaufman remarked.

Dr. Lapp told this news organization that it makes sense to use constituents of the Krebs cycle to improve mitochondrial function, but the problem with oxaloacetate is its cost. Dr. Kaufman mentioned that based on the preliminary trial, the therapeutic “sweet spot” appeared to be 1,000 mg twice daily. The manufacturer’s website lists the price for a single bottle of 30 250-mg capsules at $49, or $42 if purchased via a monthly subscription.

“It’s a benign drug, and it’s over the counter. I would give it to any patient who’s got a big wallet,” Dr. Lapp quipped, adding: “If they’ve got the money, they can order it tonight.”
 

Inspiritol

Inspiritol is an investigational “nebulized, inhaled, multimechanism medication designed to treat the major symptoms of respiratory distress with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and broad-spectrum antiviral and antibacterial properties. Inspiritol is composed of both endogenously produced and naturally occurring, well-tolerated biochemicals,” according to the company website.

The hypothesis, Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said at the meeting, is that “ME/CFS and long COVID-19 result from an aberrant response to an immunological trigger like infection, which results in a permanently dysregulated immune system as a result of overactivation of CD8 T cells and subsequent exhaustion.”

Inspiritol, containing five antioxidants, acts as an immune modulator to reverse the CD8 T cell exhaustion and improve symptoms. Administration by inhaler delivers it directly to the brain from the lung. It was originally designed for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma and has shown efficacy for acute COVID-19, Dr. Selin said.

In a preliminary study, four patients with ME/CFS and five with long COVID have been treated with Inspiritol for 2-15 months, and all have self-reported improved symptoms. Cough has been the only reported side effect.

The company is pursuing an Investigational New Drug Application for the product with the Food and Drug Administration and has several patents pending. Dr. Lapp called Inspiritol “very interesting,” and said that reversal of CD8 “exhaustion” also would appear to be a promising approach. However, he noted, “the problem is that we don’t know what’s in it.”
 

Stellate ganglion block

Injection of local anesthetic near the stellate ganglion to block activity of the entire cervical sympathetic chain has been used for nearly a century to treat a variety of sympathetically mediated conditions, including complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), shingles, and phantom-limb pain. More recently, it has been used in a variety of other conditions, including PTSD, Raynaud’s disease, menopausal hot flashes, and hyperhidrosis.

Insurance companies typically cover it for CRPS, neuropathic upper-extremity pain, hyperhidrosis, and Raynaud’s, said Luke Liu, MD, an anesthesiologist who is founder and chief executive officer of Alaska-based pain management company Neuroversion.

Deborah Duricka, PhD, also with Neuroversion, presented results from a now-published case series of 11 patients with long COVID who underwent stellate ganglion block by a board-certified anesthesiologist, first on one side at the level of C6, then on the contralateral side the following day.

Clinically meaningful benefits were seen in at least five of the patients in fatigue, memory problems, problems concentrating, rapid heartbeat, orthostatic intolerance, sleep problems, postexertional malaise, anxiety, and depression.

The hypothetical mechanism, she said, is that “sympathetic block prevents sympathetically driven vasoconstriction in carotid and vertebral arteries.”

Dr. Liu presented another case series of five patients with ME/CFS who underwent the procedure with ultrasound guidance, again on one side and the other side the next day. All had upper-limb autonomic issues such as Raynaud’s and/or neuropathic pain that had been refractory to more conventional treatments.

All five patients reported improvements in symptoms of ME/CFS, including energy level, cognition, pain, and postexertional malaise. One patient reported “feeling well for the first time in decades.” However, that patient relapsed after a mild viral illness 3.5 months after treatment. Some of the patients have required further treatments.

Dr. Lapp commented that, although the procedure is generally safe when performed by an experienced clinician, “Any time you do an injection like that, there’s a high risk that you could nick an artery or a vein or hit an essential nerve in the neck. That’s why it has to be done under fluoroscopy or ultrasound.”

He said he’s had a few patients undergo the procedure, mostly for CRPS, and they seem to have benefited from it. “It might increase cerebral blood flow and preload to the heart, so it might decrease ME/CFS symptoms and help with POTS as well.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Lapp said he wouldn’t consider stellate ganglion block as first-line treatment for ME/CFS or long COVID. “I think it would be for the treatment-resistant patient, when you’ve gone through all the treatments that we know and addressed all the comorbidities and they’re still not getting better.”

But, he added, it is a standard procedure. “Any pain clinic can do a stellate block.”
 

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation

Nicola Clague-Baker, PhD, a physiotherapist at the University of Liverpool (England), presented findings from an international survey of people with ME/CFS regarding their experience with transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) to manage their autonomic symptoms. The technique involves stimulation of the autonomic nervous system via the vagus nerve using electrodes applied to part of the ear. The theory is that the technique stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system and improves autonomic balance.

Two small previous trials showing benefit of vagus nerve stimulation for people with ME/CFS used more invasive and less comfortable methods of applying the stimulation rather than to the ear, Dr. Clague-Baker and colleagues noted in a poster. It has also been used successfully in treating POTS, another conference speaker noted.

A total of 131 people with ME/CFS (called simply “ME” in the United Kingdom) responded to a survey advertised on social media and websites. The majority (60%) were from the United Kingdom while the rest were from Europe, Australia, and North America. Most were female, and slightly more than half had lived with ME for 10 or more years.

The majority (72%) were still using taVNS, while 28% had stopped using it. Only 9% had used the modality for longer than a year. Respondents identified more than 30 benefits in symptoms and activities, with improvements in postexertional malaise (39%) and brain fog (37%) being the most common. One reported significant reduction in constipation.

However, respondents also mentioned more than 20 short- and long-term negatives, including headaches (15%) and long-term irritation at the site (9%). One participant reported a “big improvement in neuropathic pain, but not so much for muscles and joints.”

Overall, 80% reported that they would continue using taVNS and 67% said they would recommend it to others with ME, and 56% said that the system was mildly to very beneficial.

Dr. Lapp noted that several types of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation units with ear clips are sold online, and he’s seen them work well for migraine treatment. However, he cautioned that some patients have had side effects from the treatment, such as headaches and dizziness. “It’s putting an electrical current through your brain. In my mind, it’s another last-ditch measure.”

Dr. Lapp reported no financial disclosures.

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

A variety of treatments, most already commercially available, are under investigation for treating the constellation of overlapping symptoms associated with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), “long COVID,” and dysautonomia.

At the virtual annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, speakers presented data for a variety of approaches to ease symptoms common across postviral conditions, such as extreme fatigue, postexertional malaise (“crash”), cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”), orthostatic intolerance including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic pain. Most of the modalities are already commercially available for other indications, although some are costly and not covered by payers for these conditions.

“Both post–acute COVID-19 syndrome and ME/CFS are forms of postinfectious viral syndromes and they have overlapping symptoms. ... In the past, patients were told ‘you have chronic fatigue syndrome but there’s nothing we can do for it.’ That certainly is not the case. There aren’t cures, but there are many management techniques to improve symptoms,” Charles W. Lapp, MD, medical director of the Hunter-Hopkins Center, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.

A current mainstay of treatment for ME/CFS – including that triggered by COVID-19 – is activity pacing, in which patients learn to stay within their “energy envelopes” in order to avoid postexertional malaise, a worsening of all symptoms with exertion. The use of “graded exercise” is no longer recommended, per U.K. and U.S. guidelines.

Data for the following approaches were presented at the IACFS/ME conference:
 

Pyridostigmine (mestinon, others)

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of muscle weakness resulting from myasthenia gravis and is available in generic form. It has previously been shown to produce significant improvement in both symptom burden and heart rate response in POTS.

At the IACFS/ME conference, David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cardiopulmonary laboratory, both in Boston, summarized his group’s study in patients with ME/CFS using pyridostigmine as both a potential treatment for improving exercise capacity and a proof-of-concept that neurovascular dysregulation underlies exertional intolerance in the condition.

A total of 45 patients were randomized to 60 mg oral pyridostigmine or placebo after an invasive cardiopulmonary exercise test, and a second test performed 50 minutes later. Peak VO₂ increased after pyridostigmine but decreased after placebo (+13.3 mL/min vs. –40.2 mL/min, P < .05). Cardiac output and right atrial pressure were also significantly improved with pyridostigmine and worse with placebo.

“We suggest that treatable neurovascular dysregulation underlies acute exercise intolerance in ME/CFS. ... Pyridostigmine may be a useful repurposed off-label treatment [for] a subset of patients with exercise intolerance,” Dr. Systrom said.

Asked to comment, Dr. Lapp said: “We’ve used Mestinon for years because it helps with POTS and also with neurally mediated hypotension. Systrom is taking it to a new level because he’s shown that it increases preload to the heart.” However, he noted that it’s unclear whether the drug will help patients who don’t have POTS specifically. On the other hand, patients rarely experience side effects from the drug.

Since the generic tablets come only in 60-mg doses, and the starting dose is 30 mg three times a day, he advised cutting the tablets in half during titration up to 60 mg three times a day.
 

Oxaloacetate (benaGene)

David Lyons Kaufman, MD, of the Center for Complex Diseases, Mountain View, Calif., summarized data from his group’s recently published open-label, nonrandomized, “proof-of-concept” study on use of the commercially available nutritional supplement anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate for treating mental and physical fatigue in 76 patients with longstanding ME/CFS and 43 with long-COVID fatigue.

Oxaloacetate is a major step in the Krebs cycle within the mitochondria that are depleted in patients with ME/CFS. It is also an energy metabolite that has multiple effects in cells and mitochondria, Dr. Kaufman explained.

Doses ranging from 500 mg twice daily up to 1,000 mg three times a day were given for 6 weeks. Up to 33% of the patients with ME/CFS and up to 46.8% of the long-COVID group achieved clinical efficacy as measured by physical and mental fatigue scores, compared with just 5.9% of historical ME/CFS controls. All doses showed highly significant improvements.

The only adverse effects were occasional dyspepsia, which was avoided by taking the supplement with food, and insomnia, resolved by having them dose at breakfast and lunch, Dr. Kaufman said.

Following those preliminary data, there is now an ongoing 90-day, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 80 patients with ME/CFS using 2,000 mg anhydrous enol-oxaloacetate per day. Endpoints include multiple objective measures.

“We have a health care crisis with long COVID, and we’ve had this smoldering crisis with ME/CFS for decades that’s never been addressed. ME/CFS and long COVID, if not identical, are certainly overlapping. ... We have to pursue these translational medicine pilot studies as rapidly as possible,” Dr. Kaufman remarked.

Dr. Lapp told this news organization that it makes sense to use constituents of the Krebs cycle to improve mitochondrial function, but the problem with oxaloacetate is its cost. Dr. Kaufman mentioned that based on the preliminary trial, the therapeutic “sweet spot” appeared to be 1,000 mg twice daily. The manufacturer’s website lists the price for a single bottle of 30 250-mg capsules at $49, or $42 if purchased via a monthly subscription.

“It’s a benign drug, and it’s over the counter. I would give it to any patient who’s got a big wallet,” Dr. Lapp quipped, adding: “If they’ve got the money, they can order it tonight.”
 

Inspiritol

Inspiritol is an investigational “nebulized, inhaled, multimechanism medication designed to treat the major symptoms of respiratory distress with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and broad-spectrum antiviral and antibacterial properties. Inspiritol is composed of both endogenously produced and naturally occurring, well-tolerated biochemicals,” according to the company website.

The hypothesis, Liisa K. Selin, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said at the meeting, is that “ME/CFS and long COVID-19 result from an aberrant response to an immunological trigger like infection, which results in a permanently dysregulated immune system as a result of overactivation of CD8 T cells and subsequent exhaustion.”

Inspiritol, containing five antioxidants, acts as an immune modulator to reverse the CD8 T cell exhaustion and improve symptoms. Administration by inhaler delivers it directly to the brain from the lung. It was originally designed for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma and has shown efficacy for acute COVID-19, Dr. Selin said.

In a preliminary study, four patients with ME/CFS and five with long COVID have been treated with Inspiritol for 2-15 months, and all have self-reported improved symptoms. Cough has been the only reported side effect.

The company is pursuing an Investigational New Drug Application for the product with the Food and Drug Administration and has several patents pending. Dr. Lapp called Inspiritol “very interesting,” and said that reversal of CD8 “exhaustion” also would appear to be a promising approach. However, he noted, “the problem is that we don’t know what’s in it.”
 

Stellate ganglion block

Injection of local anesthetic near the stellate ganglion to block activity of the entire cervical sympathetic chain has been used for nearly a century to treat a variety of sympathetically mediated conditions, including complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), shingles, and phantom-limb pain. More recently, it has been used in a variety of other conditions, including PTSD, Raynaud’s disease, menopausal hot flashes, and hyperhidrosis.

Insurance companies typically cover it for CRPS, neuropathic upper-extremity pain, hyperhidrosis, and Raynaud’s, said Luke Liu, MD, an anesthesiologist who is founder and chief executive officer of Alaska-based pain management company Neuroversion.

Deborah Duricka, PhD, also with Neuroversion, presented results from a now-published case series of 11 patients with long COVID who underwent stellate ganglion block by a board-certified anesthesiologist, first on one side at the level of C6, then on the contralateral side the following day.

Clinically meaningful benefits were seen in at least five of the patients in fatigue, memory problems, problems concentrating, rapid heartbeat, orthostatic intolerance, sleep problems, postexertional malaise, anxiety, and depression.

The hypothetical mechanism, she said, is that “sympathetic block prevents sympathetically driven vasoconstriction in carotid and vertebral arteries.”

Dr. Liu presented another case series of five patients with ME/CFS who underwent the procedure with ultrasound guidance, again on one side and the other side the next day. All had upper-limb autonomic issues such as Raynaud’s and/or neuropathic pain that had been refractory to more conventional treatments.

All five patients reported improvements in symptoms of ME/CFS, including energy level, cognition, pain, and postexertional malaise. One patient reported “feeling well for the first time in decades.” However, that patient relapsed after a mild viral illness 3.5 months after treatment. Some of the patients have required further treatments.

Dr. Lapp commented that, although the procedure is generally safe when performed by an experienced clinician, “Any time you do an injection like that, there’s a high risk that you could nick an artery or a vein or hit an essential nerve in the neck. That’s why it has to be done under fluoroscopy or ultrasound.”

He said he’s had a few patients undergo the procedure, mostly for CRPS, and they seem to have benefited from it. “It might increase cerebral blood flow and preload to the heart, so it might decrease ME/CFS symptoms and help with POTS as well.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Lapp said he wouldn’t consider stellate ganglion block as first-line treatment for ME/CFS or long COVID. “I think it would be for the treatment-resistant patient, when you’ve gone through all the treatments that we know and addressed all the comorbidities and they’re still not getting better.”

But, he added, it is a standard procedure. “Any pain clinic can do a stellate block.”
 

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation

Nicola Clague-Baker, PhD, a physiotherapist at the University of Liverpool (England), presented findings from an international survey of people with ME/CFS regarding their experience with transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) to manage their autonomic symptoms. The technique involves stimulation of the autonomic nervous system via the vagus nerve using electrodes applied to part of the ear. The theory is that the technique stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system and improves autonomic balance.

Two small previous trials showing benefit of vagus nerve stimulation for people with ME/CFS used more invasive and less comfortable methods of applying the stimulation rather than to the ear, Dr. Clague-Baker and colleagues noted in a poster. It has also been used successfully in treating POTS, another conference speaker noted.

A total of 131 people with ME/CFS (called simply “ME” in the United Kingdom) responded to a survey advertised on social media and websites. The majority (60%) were from the United Kingdom while the rest were from Europe, Australia, and North America. Most were female, and slightly more than half had lived with ME for 10 or more years.

The majority (72%) were still using taVNS, while 28% had stopped using it. Only 9% had used the modality for longer than a year. Respondents identified more than 30 benefits in symptoms and activities, with improvements in postexertional malaise (39%) and brain fog (37%) being the most common. One reported significant reduction in constipation.

However, respondents also mentioned more than 20 short- and long-term negatives, including headaches (15%) and long-term irritation at the site (9%). One participant reported a “big improvement in neuropathic pain, but not so much for muscles and joints.”

Overall, 80% reported that they would continue using taVNS and 67% said they would recommend it to others with ME, and 56% said that the system was mildly to very beneficial.

Dr. Lapp noted that several types of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation units with ear clips are sold online, and he’s seen them work well for migraine treatment. However, he cautioned that some patients have had side effects from the treatment, such as headaches and dizziness. “It’s putting an electrical current through your brain. In my mind, it’s another last-ditch measure.”

Dr. Lapp reported no financial disclosures.

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

San Diego internist David B. Bittleman, MD, was finishing an appointment with a patient when the man’s caregiver slipped Dr. Bittleman a note as the patient walked out of the room.

“Call me tomorrow,” the mysterious message read.

Dr. Bittleman phoned the caregiver, who was the patient’s ex-wife, the next day. He assumed she wanted to discuss a routine issue, such as the patient’s treatment. But the reason she wanted to talk privately was far more ominous.

“He wants to kill you,” she said.

Dr. Bittleman was shocked. He knew the patient was angry about the fact that his opioid regimen had been tapered, but he didn’t think his fury would rise to possible homicide. The caregiver told Dr. Bittleman she believed her ex-husband was serious.

“The ex-wife and two adult sons were very alarmed by his erratic behavior,” Dr. Bittleman recalled. “She made it very clear that he said he planned to kill me. I feared for my life because I took his threat at face value.”
 

Patient sends alarming message, makes threats

When he went into medicine, Dr. Bittleman never imagined that he’d have to worry about being attacked or killed by a patient.

After spending 20 years in private practice, Dr. Bittleman was excited to accept a position at the Veterans Affairs San Diego health system. His extended family lived in the area, and he looked forward to helping veterans and to working with students, he said.

Dr. Bittleman had practiced primary care at the VA for about 5 years when he encountered the threatening patient, a veteran in his 60’s. The man was suffering from musculoskeletal pain and mental illness.

The patient had taken opioids on and off for many years. Dr. Bittleman felt that to continue the medication would not be safe, considering the man’s lifestyle.

“He had been maintained on oxycodone for chronic pain by previous providers, but I thought that was dangerous, given that he was mixing it with alcohol and marijuana,” he said. “I met with him and a substance use disorder physician for a conference call, and we explained we would need to taper the medication and eventually stop the opioids.”

Dr. Bittleman pleaded with the patient to enter drug rehab, and he offered him inpatient care for treatment of withdrawal. The man refused.

A few weeks later, Dr. Bittleman was checking the health center’s electronic messaging system. He found a disturbing message from the patient.

“You better learn jiu jitsu and hand-to-hand combat if you ever take my opioids away,” the message read. “You better learn how to defend yourself!”

Dr. Bittleman contacted the VA police and reported the message. The patient was interviewed by mental health professionals, but they did not believe he was dangerous, according to Dr. Bittleman.

“They are pretty limited to what they can do,” he said. “At a private practice, the patient might be fired or no longer allowed to come into the building, but the VA is a safety net institution. I’m not sure if he was even reprimanded.”

Two months later, the patient’s ex-wife shared the alarming news that the patient wanted to kill the doctor.

Dr. Bittleman went back to the police. They suggested he file a restraining order, which he sought that afternoon. By the end of the day, the judge had issued the restraining order, according to Dr. Bittleman and court records. The patient could not come within 100 yards of the physician, his clinic, car, or home.

But there was one frightening caveat. The order was temporary. It would last for only 2 weeks. To make the order permanent, Dr. Bittleman would have to go before the judge and argue why it was needed.

He wouldn’t be alone at the hearing. Someone else would be just paces away – the patient who wanted to murder him.
 

Doctor and patient face off before judge

As the hearing neared, Dr. Bittleman felt anxious, outraged, and fearful. He wondered whether the patient might make good on his threat.

Some colleagues suggested that Bittleman buy a gun, while others recommended he carry pepper spray. Dr. Bittleman had no interest in learning how to use a gun, he said. He took comfort in the fact that there were armed guards and metal detectors in his building, and there was a panic button under his desk.

“I was not sure I wanted to take care of patients anymore, especially chronic pain patients,” he said. “However, I went for some counseling with the Employee Assistance Program, and the therapist was helpful in normalizing my anxiety and acknowledging my fear.”

On the day of the hearing, Dr. Bittleman sat in the back of the courtroom. The patient, who sat near the front, glanced at Dr. Bittleman with a slight smile.

When his case was called, the judge explained that as the plaintiff, the burden was on Dr. Bittleman to prove the patient was a threat to his safety. He provided the judge a copy of the threatening message and a copy of the ex-wife’s note.

After reading the documents, the judge asked the patient to explain his side. The patient complained that the VA had denied him certain benefits and that he was forced to receive mental health treatment rehab that he “didn’t need.” The judge eventually interrupted the man to ask if he had threatened to kill Dr. Bittleman.

“Oh yes, your honor, I did say that, but I was only joking,” he told the judge.

The admission was enough. The judge issued a restraining order against the patient that would last 1 year. He could not have firearms, and if he violated the order, he would be arrested.

The terrifying saga was finally over.

“I never heard from the patient again,” Dr. Bittleman said. “His [care] location was changed, and police were required to come to all his visits with his new provider. I was relieved that if he ever came near me, he was going to jail.”

To raise awareness about such ordeals and the hassles that can follow, Dr. Bittleman wrote an article about his experience, which was published in the Annals of Family Medicine. He continues to treat patients at the VA, including those with chronic pain, but the memory of the menacing patient resurfaces from time to time.

“I do still think about it,” he said. “I know how to use my panic button, and I test it every 90 days. If there is a patient who concerns me, I will have the VA police wait nearby. I am very aware and upset by violence. When I hear about a doctor getting killed, I feel a clutch in my chest. How could I not relate? Here is a doctor who worked hard, who dedicated their life to help patients, and it comes to this? It’s so revolting. It makes me sick.”
 

Can you identify a violent patient?

Concern over threatening patients has grown across the country after recent violent attacks against physicians in Oklahoma and California. Two physicians were shot to death in June 2022 when a patient opened fire inside a Tulsa medical building. The primary target of the shooting was a surgeon who had performed surgery on the patient. Also in June, two nurses and an emergency physician were stabbed by a patient inside the Encino Hospital Medical Center. They survived.

The attacks raise questions about how to identify potentially violent patients and how to mitigate possible violence.

Threats and violence against health care professionals are nothing new, but they’re finally getting the attention they deserve, says Derek Schaller, MD, an emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant.

“Violence against personnel in medicine has been an issue for a long time; it’s just finally making headlines,” he said. “Way back when, it almost seemed like it was part of the job, part of the gig. But it shouldn’t be part of the gig. It’s not something we should be dealing with.”

It’s common for health care professionals and health centers to take a reactive approach to violent patients, but Dr. Schaller encourages a more proactive strategy. Central Michigan University Health, for example, recently studied its past violent encounters and analyzed the characteristics of violent patients. The analysis came after an increase in violent patient episodes at the health center in the past year, Dr. Schaller said.

The study yielded some interesting results, including that a large percentage of patients who became violent in the emergency department did so within the first hour they were in the hospital, he said.

“You would have thought it’s the patients who have been there and have been stuck in the emergency department for a while and who became disgruntled, but that was not the case,” Dr. Schaller said.

He recommends that physicians, medical practices, and hospitals carry out similar assessments of their patient populations and of past violent encounters to determine trends. His institution will be implementing a screening tool in triage to identify patients more likely to become violent so that health care professionals can intervene earlier, he said.

Such a screening tool is already demonstrating success in a variety of medical settings.

About 10 years ago, a research team led by Son Chae Kim, PhD, RN, found that the 10-item Aggressive Behavior Risk Assessment Tool (ABRAT) was able to identify potentially violent patients with reasonable sensitivity and specificity in hospital medical-surgical units.

Subsequently, the tool was modified for long-term care facilities, and again, researchers found that ABRAT was able to identify potentially violent residents with reasonable sensitivity and specificity, said Dr. Kim, ABRAT developer and a professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego.

In 2021, researchers embedded the checklist into an electronic health record (EHR) system and tested ABRAT in emergency departments.

“Currently, we are working with computer programmers to build an app that would make the ABRAT very easy to use in conjunction with EHR,” Dr. Kim said. “Instead of a nurse searching the EHR to find out if the patient has history of mental illness or aggressive behavior in the past, the app would automatically search the EHR and combine the nurse’s quick observation whether the patient is confused, agitated, staring, or threatening, to automatically calculate the violence risk.”

Dr. Kim and her team also developed a tool called VEST (Violent Event Severity Tool), a standardized objective workplace violence severity assessment. They are working with programmers to incorporate VEST into the app as well.

Dr. Kim’s hope is that the ABRAT tool can be modified for use in a range of health care settings.

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

San Diego internist David B. Bittleman, MD, was finishing an appointment with a patient when the man’s caregiver slipped Dr. Bittleman a note as the patient walked out of the room.

“Call me tomorrow,” the mysterious message read.

Dr. Bittleman phoned the caregiver, who was the patient’s ex-wife, the next day. He assumed she wanted to discuss a routine issue, such as the patient’s treatment. But the reason she wanted to talk privately was far more ominous.

“He wants to kill you,” she said.

Dr. Bittleman was shocked. He knew the patient was angry about the fact that his opioid regimen had been tapered, but he didn’t think his fury would rise to possible homicide. The caregiver told Dr. Bittleman she believed her ex-husband was serious.

“The ex-wife and two adult sons were very alarmed by his erratic behavior,” Dr. Bittleman recalled. “She made it very clear that he said he planned to kill me. I feared for my life because I took his threat at face value.”
 

Patient sends alarming message, makes threats

When he went into medicine, Dr. Bittleman never imagined that he’d have to worry about being attacked or killed by a patient.

After spending 20 years in private practice, Dr. Bittleman was excited to accept a position at the Veterans Affairs San Diego health system. His extended family lived in the area, and he looked forward to helping veterans and to working with students, he said.

Dr. Bittleman had practiced primary care at the VA for about 5 years when he encountered the threatening patient, a veteran in his 60’s. The man was suffering from musculoskeletal pain and mental illness.

The patient had taken opioids on and off for many years. Dr. Bittleman felt that to continue the medication would not be safe, considering the man’s lifestyle.

“He had been maintained on oxycodone for chronic pain by previous providers, but I thought that was dangerous, given that he was mixing it with alcohol and marijuana,” he said. “I met with him and a substance use disorder physician for a conference call, and we explained we would need to taper the medication and eventually stop the opioids.”

Dr. Bittleman pleaded with the patient to enter drug rehab, and he offered him inpatient care for treatment of withdrawal. The man refused.

A few weeks later, Dr. Bittleman was checking the health center’s electronic messaging system. He found a disturbing message from the patient.

“You better learn jiu jitsu and hand-to-hand combat if you ever take my opioids away,” the message read. “You better learn how to defend yourself!”

Dr. Bittleman contacted the VA police and reported the message. The patient was interviewed by mental health professionals, but they did not believe he was dangerous, according to Dr. Bittleman.

“They are pretty limited to what they can do,” he said. “At a private practice, the patient might be fired or no longer allowed to come into the building, but the VA is a safety net institution. I’m not sure if he was even reprimanded.”

Two months later, the patient’s ex-wife shared the alarming news that the patient wanted to kill the doctor.

Dr. Bittleman went back to the police. They suggested he file a restraining order, which he sought that afternoon. By the end of the day, the judge had issued the restraining order, according to Dr. Bittleman and court records. The patient could not come within 100 yards of the physician, his clinic, car, or home.

But there was one frightening caveat. The order was temporary. It would last for only 2 weeks. To make the order permanent, Dr. Bittleman would have to go before the judge and argue why it was needed.

He wouldn’t be alone at the hearing. Someone else would be just paces away – the patient who wanted to murder him.
 

Doctor and patient face off before judge

As the hearing neared, Dr. Bittleman felt anxious, outraged, and fearful. He wondered whether the patient might make good on his threat.

Some colleagues suggested that Bittleman buy a gun, while others recommended he carry pepper spray. Dr. Bittleman had no interest in learning how to use a gun, he said. He took comfort in the fact that there were armed guards and metal detectors in his building, and there was a panic button under his desk.

“I was not sure I wanted to take care of patients anymore, especially chronic pain patients,” he said. “However, I went for some counseling with the Employee Assistance Program, and the therapist was helpful in normalizing my anxiety and acknowledging my fear.”

On the day of the hearing, Dr. Bittleman sat in the back of the courtroom. The patient, who sat near the front, glanced at Dr. Bittleman with a slight smile.

When his case was called, the judge explained that as the plaintiff, the burden was on Dr. Bittleman to prove the patient was a threat to his safety. He provided the judge a copy of the threatening message and a copy of the ex-wife’s note.

After reading the documents, the judge asked the patient to explain his side. The patient complained that the VA had denied him certain benefits and that he was forced to receive mental health treatment rehab that he “didn’t need.” The judge eventually interrupted the man to ask if he had threatened to kill Dr. Bittleman.

“Oh yes, your honor, I did say that, but I was only joking,” he told the judge.

The admission was enough. The judge issued a restraining order against the patient that would last 1 year. He could not have firearms, and if he violated the order, he would be arrested.

The terrifying saga was finally over.

“I never heard from the patient again,” Dr. Bittleman said. “His [care] location was changed, and police were required to come to all his visits with his new provider. I was relieved that if he ever came near me, he was going to jail.”

To raise awareness about such ordeals and the hassles that can follow, Dr. Bittleman wrote an article about his experience, which was published in the Annals of Family Medicine. He continues to treat patients at the VA, including those with chronic pain, but the memory of the menacing patient resurfaces from time to time.

“I do still think about it,” he said. “I know how to use my panic button, and I test it every 90 days. If there is a patient who concerns me, I will have the VA police wait nearby. I am very aware and upset by violence. When I hear about a doctor getting killed, I feel a clutch in my chest. How could I not relate? Here is a doctor who worked hard, who dedicated their life to help patients, and it comes to this? It’s so revolting. It makes me sick.”
 

Can you identify a violent patient?

Concern over threatening patients has grown across the country after recent violent attacks against physicians in Oklahoma and California. Two physicians were shot to death in June 2022 when a patient opened fire inside a Tulsa medical building. The primary target of the shooting was a surgeon who had performed surgery on the patient. Also in June, two nurses and an emergency physician were stabbed by a patient inside the Encino Hospital Medical Center. They survived.

The attacks raise questions about how to identify potentially violent patients and how to mitigate possible violence.

Threats and violence against health care professionals are nothing new, but they’re finally getting the attention they deserve, says Derek Schaller, MD, an emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant.

“Violence against personnel in medicine has been an issue for a long time; it’s just finally making headlines,” he said. “Way back when, it almost seemed like it was part of the job, part of the gig. But it shouldn’t be part of the gig. It’s not something we should be dealing with.”

It’s common for health care professionals and health centers to take a reactive approach to violent patients, but Dr. Schaller encourages a more proactive strategy. Central Michigan University Health, for example, recently studied its past violent encounters and analyzed the characteristics of violent patients. The analysis came after an increase in violent patient episodes at the health center in the past year, Dr. Schaller said.

The study yielded some interesting results, including that a large percentage of patients who became violent in the emergency department did so within the first hour they were in the hospital, he said.

“You would have thought it’s the patients who have been there and have been stuck in the emergency department for a while and who became disgruntled, but that was not the case,” Dr. Schaller said.

He recommends that physicians, medical practices, and hospitals carry out similar assessments of their patient populations and of past violent encounters to determine trends. His institution will be implementing a screening tool in triage to identify patients more likely to become violent so that health care professionals can intervene earlier, he said.

Such a screening tool is already demonstrating success in a variety of medical settings.

About 10 years ago, a research team led by Son Chae Kim, PhD, RN, found that the 10-item Aggressive Behavior Risk Assessment Tool (ABRAT) was able to identify potentially violent patients with reasonable sensitivity and specificity in hospital medical-surgical units.

Subsequently, the tool was modified for long-term care facilities, and again, researchers found that ABRAT was able to identify potentially violent residents with reasonable sensitivity and specificity, said Dr. Kim, ABRAT developer and a professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego.

In 2021, researchers embedded the checklist into an electronic health record (EHR) system and tested ABRAT in emergency departments.

“Currently, we are working with computer programmers to build an app that would make the ABRAT very easy to use in conjunction with EHR,” Dr. Kim said. “Instead of a nurse searching the EHR to find out if the patient has history of mental illness or aggressive behavior in the past, the app would automatically search the EHR and combine the nurse’s quick observation whether the patient is confused, agitated, staring, or threatening, to automatically calculate the violence risk.”

Dr. Kim and her team also developed a tool called VEST (Violent Event Severity Tool), a standardized objective workplace violence severity assessment. They are working with programmers to incorporate VEST into the app as well.

Dr. Kim’s hope is that the ABRAT tool can be modified for use in a range of health care settings.

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

San Diego internist David B. Bittleman, MD, was finishing an appointment with a patient when the man’s caregiver slipped Dr. Bittleman a note as the patient walked out of the room.

“Call me tomorrow,” the mysterious message read.

Dr. Bittleman phoned the caregiver, who was the patient’s ex-wife, the next day. He assumed she wanted to discuss a routine issue, such as the patient’s treatment. But the reason she wanted to talk privately was far more ominous.

“He wants to kill you,” she said.

Dr. Bittleman was shocked. He knew the patient was angry about the fact that his opioid regimen had been tapered, but he didn’t think his fury would rise to possible homicide. The caregiver told Dr. Bittleman she believed her ex-husband was serious.

“The ex-wife and two adult sons were very alarmed by his erratic behavior,” Dr. Bittleman recalled. “She made it very clear that he said he planned to kill me. I feared for my life because I took his threat at face value.”
 

Patient sends alarming message, makes threats

When he went into medicine, Dr. Bittleman never imagined that he’d have to worry about being attacked or killed by a patient.

After spending 20 years in private practice, Dr. Bittleman was excited to accept a position at the Veterans Affairs San Diego health system. His extended family lived in the area, and he looked forward to helping veterans and to working with students, he said.

Dr. Bittleman had practiced primary care at the VA for about 5 years when he encountered the threatening patient, a veteran in his 60’s. The man was suffering from musculoskeletal pain and mental illness.

The patient had taken opioids on and off for many years. Dr. Bittleman felt that to continue the medication would not be safe, considering the man’s lifestyle.

“He had been maintained on oxycodone for chronic pain by previous providers, but I thought that was dangerous, given that he was mixing it with alcohol and marijuana,” he said. “I met with him and a substance use disorder physician for a conference call, and we explained we would need to taper the medication and eventually stop the opioids.”

Dr. Bittleman pleaded with the patient to enter drug rehab, and he offered him inpatient care for treatment of withdrawal. The man refused.

A few weeks later, Dr. Bittleman was checking the health center’s electronic messaging system. He found a disturbing message from the patient.

“You better learn jiu jitsu and hand-to-hand combat if you ever take my opioids away,” the message read. “You better learn how to defend yourself!”

Dr. Bittleman contacted the VA police and reported the message. The patient was interviewed by mental health professionals, but they did not believe he was dangerous, according to Dr. Bittleman.

“They are pretty limited to what they can do,” he said. “At a private practice, the patient might be fired or no longer allowed to come into the building, but the VA is a safety net institution. I’m not sure if he was even reprimanded.”

Two months later, the patient’s ex-wife shared the alarming news that the patient wanted to kill the doctor.

Dr. Bittleman went back to the police. They suggested he file a restraining order, which he sought that afternoon. By the end of the day, the judge had issued the restraining order, according to Dr. Bittleman and court records. The patient could not come within 100 yards of the physician, his clinic, car, or home.

But there was one frightening caveat. The order was temporary. It would last for only 2 weeks. To make the order permanent, Dr. Bittleman would have to go before the judge and argue why it was needed.

He wouldn’t be alone at the hearing. Someone else would be just paces away – the patient who wanted to murder him.
 

Doctor and patient face off before judge

As the hearing neared, Dr. Bittleman felt anxious, outraged, and fearful. He wondered whether the patient might make good on his threat.

Some colleagues suggested that Bittleman buy a gun, while others recommended he carry pepper spray. Dr. Bittleman had no interest in learning how to use a gun, he said. He took comfort in the fact that there were armed guards and metal detectors in his building, and there was a panic button under his desk.

“I was not sure I wanted to take care of patients anymore, especially chronic pain patients,” he said. “However, I went for some counseling with the Employee Assistance Program, and the therapist was helpful in normalizing my anxiety and acknowledging my fear.”

On the day of the hearing, Dr. Bittleman sat in the back of the courtroom. The patient, who sat near the front, glanced at Dr. Bittleman with a slight smile.

When his case was called, the judge explained that as the plaintiff, the burden was on Dr. Bittleman to prove the patient was a threat to his safety. He provided the judge a copy of the threatening message and a copy of the ex-wife’s note.

After reading the documents, the judge asked the patient to explain his side. The patient complained that the VA had denied him certain benefits and that he was forced to receive mental health treatment rehab that he “didn’t need.” The judge eventually interrupted the man to ask if he had threatened to kill Dr. Bittleman.

“Oh yes, your honor, I did say that, but I was only joking,” he told the judge.

The admission was enough. The judge issued a restraining order against the patient that would last 1 year. He could not have firearms, and if he violated the order, he would be arrested.

The terrifying saga was finally over.

“I never heard from the patient again,” Dr. Bittleman said. “His [care] location was changed, and police were required to come to all his visits with his new provider. I was relieved that if he ever came near me, he was going to jail.”

To raise awareness about such ordeals and the hassles that can follow, Dr. Bittleman wrote an article about his experience, which was published in the Annals of Family Medicine. He continues to treat patients at the VA, including those with chronic pain, but the memory of the menacing patient resurfaces from time to time.

“I do still think about it,” he said. “I know how to use my panic button, and I test it every 90 days. If there is a patient who concerns me, I will have the VA police wait nearby. I am very aware and upset by violence. When I hear about a doctor getting killed, I feel a clutch in my chest. How could I not relate? Here is a doctor who worked hard, who dedicated their life to help patients, and it comes to this? It’s so revolting. It makes me sick.”
 

Can you identify a violent patient?

Concern over threatening patients has grown across the country after recent violent attacks against physicians in Oklahoma and California. Two physicians were shot to death in June 2022 when a patient opened fire inside a Tulsa medical building. The primary target of the shooting was a surgeon who had performed surgery on the patient. Also in June, two nurses and an emergency physician were stabbed by a patient inside the Encino Hospital Medical Center. They survived.

The attacks raise questions about how to identify potentially violent patients and how to mitigate possible violence.

Threats and violence against health care professionals are nothing new, but they’re finally getting the attention they deserve, says Derek Schaller, MD, an emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant.

“Violence against personnel in medicine has been an issue for a long time; it’s just finally making headlines,” he said. “Way back when, it almost seemed like it was part of the job, part of the gig. But it shouldn’t be part of the gig. It’s not something we should be dealing with.”

It’s common for health care professionals and health centers to take a reactive approach to violent patients, but Dr. Schaller encourages a more proactive strategy. Central Michigan University Health, for example, recently studied its past violent encounters and analyzed the characteristics of violent patients. The analysis came after an increase in violent patient episodes at the health center in the past year, Dr. Schaller said.

The study yielded some interesting results, including that a large percentage of patients who became violent in the emergency department did so within the first hour they were in the hospital, he said.

“You would have thought it’s the patients who have been there and have been stuck in the emergency department for a while and who became disgruntled, but that was not the case,” Dr. Schaller said.

He recommends that physicians, medical practices, and hospitals carry out similar assessments of their patient populations and of past violent encounters to determine trends. His institution will be implementing a screening tool in triage to identify patients more likely to become violent so that health care professionals can intervene earlier, he said.

Such a screening tool is already demonstrating success in a variety of medical settings.

About 10 years ago, a research team led by Son Chae Kim, PhD, RN, found that the 10-item Aggressive Behavior Risk Assessment Tool (ABRAT) was able to identify potentially violent patients with reasonable sensitivity and specificity in hospital medical-surgical units.

Subsequently, the tool was modified for long-term care facilities, and again, researchers found that ABRAT was able to identify potentially violent residents with reasonable sensitivity and specificity, said Dr. Kim, ABRAT developer and a professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego.

In 2021, researchers embedded the checklist into an electronic health record (EHR) system and tested ABRAT in emergency departments.

“Currently, we are working with computer programmers to build an app that would make the ABRAT very easy to use in conjunction with EHR,” Dr. Kim said. “Instead of a nurse searching the EHR to find out if the patient has history of mental illness or aggressive behavior in the past, the app would automatically search the EHR and combine the nurse’s quick observation whether the patient is confused, agitated, staring, or threatening, to automatically calculate the violence risk.”

Dr. Kim and her team also developed a tool called VEST (Violent Event Severity Tool), a standardized objective workplace violence severity assessment. They are working with programmers to incorporate VEST into the app as well.

Dr. Kim’s hope is that the ABRAT tool can be modified for use in a range of health care settings.

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

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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