Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
 

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
 

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
 

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

An experimental psychedelic tryptamine combined with supportive therapy is associated with improvements in moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

Top-line results from a phase 2a study of SPL026 (intravenous N,N-Dimethyltryptamine [DMT]) showed a 57% remission rate 3 months after participants received a single dose of the drug, the developer reports.

Small Pharma noted in a press release that this is the first placebo-controlled efficacy trial of a short-duration psychedelic for depression completed to date.

Investigators reported significant improvement in depression symptoms 2 weeks after dosing, which was the primary endpoint, and the improvement persisted at week 12.

“We now have the first evidence that SPL026 DMT, combined with supportive therapy, may be effective for people suffering from MDD,” chief investigator David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical psychiatrist at Imperial College London, said in a statement.

“For patients who are unfortunate to experience little benefit from existing antidepressants, the potential for rapid and durable relief from a single treatment, as shown in this trial, is very promising,” Dr. Erritzoe added.
 

Randomized trial results

The blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-staged phase 2a study included 34 patients with moderate to severe MDD. Those who were taking pharmacological antidepressant medication at baseline stopped taking the medication prior to dosing with SPL026.

Patients received a placebo (n = 17) or active treatment (n = 17). The latter consisted of a short IV infusion of 21.5 mg of SPL026, resulting in a 20- to 30-minute psychedelic experience, and supportive therapy.

The dose was selected based on data analysis from the company’s phase 1 study in healthy volunteers.

Efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to measure changes in MDD symptoms.

Two weeks after dosing, those receiving the novel therapy showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, demonstrating a –7.4-point difference versus the placebo group in MADRS score (P = .02).

Analysis of key secondary endpoints showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect 1 week post-dose, with a statistically significant difference in MADRS score between the active and placebo groups of –10.8 points (P = .002).
 

Next steps?

All participants were subsequently enrolled into an open-label phase of the trial where they received a single dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy. They were then followed for a further 12 weeks.

In the open-label phase, patients who received at least one active dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy reported a durable improvement in depression symptoms.

No apparent difference in antidepressant effect was observed between a one- or two-dose regimen of SPL026.

“SPL026 with supportive therapy was shown to have a significant antidepressant effect that was rapid and durable,” Carol Routledge, PhD, chief medical and scientific officer at Small Pharma, said in the statement.

Small Pharma

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

An experimental psychedelic tryptamine combined with supportive therapy is associated with improvements in moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

Top-line results from a phase 2a study of SPL026 (intravenous N,N-Dimethyltryptamine [DMT]) showed a 57% remission rate 3 months after participants received a single dose of the drug, the developer reports.

Small Pharma noted in a press release that this is the first placebo-controlled efficacy trial of a short-duration psychedelic for depression completed to date.

Investigators reported significant improvement in depression symptoms 2 weeks after dosing, which was the primary endpoint, and the improvement persisted at week 12.

“We now have the first evidence that SPL026 DMT, combined with supportive therapy, may be effective for people suffering from MDD,” chief investigator David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical psychiatrist at Imperial College London, said in a statement.

“For patients who are unfortunate to experience little benefit from existing antidepressants, the potential for rapid and durable relief from a single treatment, as shown in this trial, is very promising,” Dr. Erritzoe added.
 

Randomized trial results

The blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-staged phase 2a study included 34 patients with moderate to severe MDD. Those who were taking pharmacological antidepressant medication at baseline stopped taking the medication prior to dosing with SPL026.

Patients received a placebo (n = 17) or active treatment (n = 17). The latter consisted of a short IV infusion of 21.5 mg of SPL026, resulting in a 20- to 30-minute psychedelic experience, and supportive therapy.

The dose was selected based on data analysis from the company’s phase 1 study in healthy volunteers.

Efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to measure changes in MDD symptoms.

Two weeks after dosing, those receiving the novel therapy showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, demonstrating a –7.4-point difference versus the placebo group in MADRS score (P = .02).

Analysis of key secondary endpoints showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect 1 week post-dose, with a statistically significant difference in MADRS score between the active and placebo groups of –10.8 points (P = .002).
 

Next steps?

All participants were subsequently enrolled into an open-label phase of the trial where they received a single dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy. They were then followed for a further 12 weeks.

In the open-label phase, patients who received at least one active dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy reported a durable improvement in depression symptoms.

No apparent difference in antidepressant effect was observed between a one- or two-dose regimen of SPL026.

“SPL026 with supportive therapy was shown to have a significant antidepressant effect that was rapid and durable,” Carol Routledge, PhD, chief medical and scientific officer at Small Pharma, said in the statement.

Small Pharma

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

An experimental psychedelic tryptamine combined with supportive therapy is associated with improvements in moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

Top-line results from a phase 2a study of SPL026 (intravenous N,N-Dimethyltryptamine [DMT]) showed a 57% remission rate 3 months after participants received a single dose of the drug, the developer reports.

Small Pharma noted in a press release that this is the first placebo-controlled efficacy trial of a short-duration psychedelic for depression completed to date.

Investigators reported significant improvement in depression symptoms 2 weeks after dosing, which was the primary endpoint, and the improvement persisted at week 12.

“We now have the first evidence that SPL026 DMT, combined with supportive therapy, may be effective for people suffering from MDD,” chief investigator David Erritzoe, MD, PhD, clinical psychiatrist at Imperial College London, said in a statement.

“For patients who are unfortunate to experience little benefit from existing antidepressants, the potential for rapid and durable relief from a single treatment, as shown in this trial, is very promising,” Dr. Erritzoe added.
 

Randomized trial results

The blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-staged phase 2a study included 34 patients with moderate to severe MDD. Those who were taking pharmacological antidepressant medication at baseline stopped taking the medication prior to dosing with SPL026.

Patients received a placebo (n = 17) or active treatment (n = 17). The latter consisted of a short IV infusion of 21.5 mg of SPL026, resulting in a 20- to 30-minute psychedelic experience, and supportive therapy.

The dose was selected based on data analysis from the company’s phase 1 study in healthy volunteers.

Efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to measure changes in MDD symptoms.

Two weeks after dosing, those receiving the novel therapy showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, demonstrating a –7.4-point difference versus the placebo group in MADRS score (P = .02).

Analysis of key secondary endpoints showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect 1 week post-dose, with a statistically significant difference in MADRS score between the active and placebo groups of –10.8 points (P = .002).
 

Next steps?

All participants were subsequently enrolled into an open-label phase of the trial where they received a single dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy. They were then followed for a further 12 weeks.

In the open-label phase, patients who received at least one active dose of SPL026 with supportive therapy reported a durable improvement in depression symptoms.

No apparent difference in antidepressant effect was observed between a one- or two-dose regimen of SPL026.

“SPL026 with supportive therapy was shown to have a significant antidepressant effect that was rapid and durable,” Carol Routledge, PhD, chief medical and scientific officer at Small Pharma, said in the statement.

Small Pharma

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

Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.

She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.

The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.

Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.

“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”

Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”

But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.

“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.

Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.

According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.

A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.

To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.

However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.

Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.

The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.

“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”

Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.

Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.

“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”

The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.

“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.

Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.

“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.

Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.

In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.

“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”

It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.

“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.

Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”

In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”

This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.

What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.

“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.

Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.

She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.

The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.

Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.

“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”

Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”

But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.

“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.

Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.

According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.

A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.

To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.

However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.

Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.

The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.

“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”

Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.

Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.

“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”

The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.

“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.

Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.

“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.

Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.

In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.

“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”

It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.

“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.

Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”

In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”

This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.

What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.

“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.

Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.

She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.

The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.

Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.

“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”

Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”

But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.

“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.

Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.

According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.

A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.

To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.

However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.

Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.

The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.

“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”

Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.

Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.

“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”

The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.

“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.

Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.

“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.

Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.

In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.

“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”

It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.

“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.

Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”

In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”

This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.

What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.

“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.