The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.

“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

Courtesy Cedars-Sinai

“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.

Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.

Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.

In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.

Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).

Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.

More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.

The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.

“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.

“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”

The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”

Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.

More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.

Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.

Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.

“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

Courtesy Cedars-Sinai

“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.

Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.

Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.

In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.

Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).

Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.

More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.

The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.

“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.

“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”

The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”

Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.

More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.

Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.

Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.

“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

Courtesy Cedars-Sinai

“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.

Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.

Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.

In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.

Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).

Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.

More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.

The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.

“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.

“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”

The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”

Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.

More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.

Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.

Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Gastroenterological Association has made the first investment through its new venture capital fund – an initiative that gives gastroenterologists a financial opportunity combined with a chance to help corporations trying to make a difference in the field.

The fund – called the GI Opportunity Fund 1 – invests in fast-growing, early-stage companies, with the goal of hastening innovation that could ultimately help patients with digestive diseases. It was established in partnership with Varia Ventures.

The AGA recently announced the fund’s first investment with Carlsbad, Calif.–based Virgo Surgical Video Solutions, which offers endoscopy video recording that uses artificial intelligence for ease of use during procedures, for reviewing video later, and for using video to connect trial investigators with potential candidates.

“While AGA has long guided innovators who share our goal of improving digestive health care, we have doubled down on this commitment by establishing the GI Opportunity Fund,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, AGA Governing Board Councilor for Development and Growth. “The fund’s first investment – Virgo – exemplifies our pursuit of improved clinical care.”

He said the fund gives physicians a chance to work closely with AGA to invest in difference-making ventures.

“Through our venture fund, gastroenterologists can join AGA to invest in fast-growing, early-stage companies that are transforming care for patients with digestive disease,” Dr. Kosinski said.

Virgo CEO Matthew Z. Schwartz said the company’s product is intended to fill an important need.

“We recognized that it was really difficult for doctors to capture endoscopy procedures video in high-definition at scale,” he said. “Generally, they were just taking still images. And the images were often not of great quality.”

Virgo offers a small device that connects to existing endoscopy equipment, plugging into the back of a video processor, securely compressing and encrypting video and sending it to Virgo’s HIPAA-compliant cloud storage Web portal. Once it’s plugged in, Mr. Schwartz said, it’s “set it and forget it.”

“We try to make it as easy as possible for doctors to record their video – which means we don’t want them to have to do anything different about their normal clinical workflow in order to generate these videos,” Mr. Schwartz said. Physicians don’t even have to press a start or stop button – Virgo’s machine-learning algorithm detects when to start and stop video recording by discerning when the scope is inserted and removed.

“A goal of ours is to change the paradigm for endoscopy to help make sure that every procedure is captured in HD to the cloud,” he said.

The service also includes an “auto-highlight” feature that detects important moments in the procedure video. It automatically marks points in the video when the physician takes a still image and moments when an instrument, such as a snare or forceps, is present in the field of view. This, Mr. Schwartz said, makes it “easy in playback to focus on important aspects of the procedure.”

There is also a clinical trial screening feature, called “auto IBD,” that involves an algorithm that assesses videos to identify patients most likely to be eligible candidates for clinical trials. Mr. Schwartz said that procedures and patients who might go unconsidered – if they are performed at an affiliated community hospital or at an endoscopy center, for instance – can now be brought to the attention of trial investigators, without the need to comb through hundreds or thousands of candidates.

“We believe there are many more patients with these diseases that are eligible for IBD clinical trials than are currently being exposed to research opportunities within large health systems,” he said.

The proceeds from the AGA’s Opportunity Fund will be used, in part, to expand Virgo’s reach, he added. Virgo’s connection with the AGA began with its participation in the AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank competition in 2018.

“For us, the name of the game is getting Virgo in the hands of as many physicians and health systems as possible,” Mr. Schwartz said. “So we’ll be using these proceeds to build up the team and work on global distribution.” The company is also “looking to refine machine-learning algorithms and build out new features and tools.”

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., was one of the Opportunity Fund’s earliest member investors.

“I was looking for ways to diversify my portfolio and this was an attractive way to get into an area of investment that is not easily accessible, and so I was excited about that,” said Dr. Gellad, who himself is cofounder of a health start-up that develops software for patient navigation and outcomes collection but is not associated with the fund.

“As a start-up cofounder myself, I understand the needs of founders of companies, especially those in the GI space and appreciate the struggles they face,” Dr. Gellad added. “The opportunity to contribute to that was appealing.”

“I also believe that specialty societies like the AGA need to diversify their funding strategy and I think this is a really innovative way to do that,” he said.

The American Gastroenterological Association has made the first investment through its new venture capital fund – an initiative that gives gastroenterologists a financial opportunity combined with a chance to help corporations trying to make a difference in the field.

The fund – called the GI Opportunity Fund 1 – invests in fast-growing, early-stage companies, with the goal of hastening innovation that could ultimately help patients with digestive diseases. It was established in partnership with Varia Ventures.

The AGA recently announced the fund’s first investment with Carlsbad, Calif.–based Virgo Surgical Video Solutions, which offers endoscopy video recording that uses artificial intelligence for ease of use during procedures, for reviewing video later, and for using video to connect trial investigators with potential candidates.

“While AGA has long guided innovators who share our goal of improving digestive health care, we have doubled down on this commitment by establishing the GI Opportunity Fund,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, AGA Governing Board Councilor for Development and Growth. “The fund’s first investment – Virgo – exemplifies our pursuit of improved clinical care.”

He said the fund gives physicians a chance to work closely with AGA to invest in difference-making ventures.

“Through our venture fund, gastroenterologists can join AGA to invest in fast-growing, early-stage companies that are transforming care for patients with digestive disease,” Dr. Kosinski said.

Virgo CEO Matthew Z. Schwartz said the company’s product is intended to fill an important need.

“We recognized that it was really difficult for doctors to capture endoscopy procedures video in high-definition at scale,” he said. “Generally, they were just taking still images. And the images were often not of great quality.”

Virgo offers a small device that connects to existing endoscopy equipment, plugging into the back of a video processor, securely compressing and encrypting video and sending it to Virgo’s HIPAA-compliant cloud storage Web portal. Once it’s plugged in, Mr. Schwartz said, it’s “set it and forget it.”

“We try to make it as easy as possible for doctors to record their video – which means we don’t want them to have to do anything different about their normal clinical workflow in order to generate these videos,” Mr. Schwartz said. Physicians don’t even have to press a start or stop button – Virgo’s machine-learning algorithm detects when to start and stop video recording by discerning when the scope is inserted and removed.

“A goal of ours is to change the paradigm for endoscopy to help make sure that every procedure is captured in HD to the cloud,” he said.

The service also includes an “auto-highlight” feature that detects important moments in the procedure video. It automatically marks points in the video when the physician takes a still image and moments when an instrument, such as a snare or forceps, is present in the field of view. This, Mr. Schwartz said, makes it “easy in playback to focus on important aspects of the procedure.”

There is also a clinical trial screening feature, called “auto IBD,” that involves an algorithm that assesses videos to identify patients most likely to be eligible candidates for clinical trials. Mr. Schwartz said that procedures and patients who might go unconsidered – if they are performed at an affiliated community hospital or at an endoscopy center, for instance – can now be brought to the attention of trial investigators, without the need to comb through hundreds or thousands of candidates.

“We believe there are many more patients with these diseases that are eligible for IBD clinical trials than are currently being exposed to research opportunities within large health systems,” he said.

The proceeds from the AGA’s Opportunity Fund will be used, in part, to expand Virgo’s reach, he added. Virgo’s connection with the AGA began with its participation in the AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank competition in 2018.

“For us, the name of the game is getting Virgo in the hands of as many physicians and health systems as possible,” Mr. Schwartz said. “So we’ll be using these proceeds to build up the team and work on global distribution.” The company is also “looking to refine machine-learning algorithms and build out new features and tools.”

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., was one of the Opportunity Fund’s earliest member investors.

“I was looking for ways to diversify my portfolio and this was an attractive way to get into an area of investment that is not easily accessible, and so I was excited about that,” said Dr. Gellad, who himself is cofounder of a health start-up that develops software for patient navigation and outcomes collection but is not associated with the fund.

“As a start-up cofounder myself, I understand the needs of founders of companies, especially those in the GI space and appreciate the struggles they face,” Dr. Gellad added. “The opportunity to contribute to that was appealing.”

“I also believe that specialty societies like the AGA need to diversify their funding strategy and I think this is a really innovative way to do that,” he said.

The American Gastroenterological Association has made the first investment through its new venture capital fund – an initiative that gives gastroenterologists a financial opportunity combined with a chance to help corporations trying to make a difference in the field.

The fund – called the GI Opportunity Fund 1 – invests in fast-growing, early-stage companies, with the goal of hastening innovation that could ultimately help patients with digestive diseases. It was established in partnership with Varia Ventures.

The AGA recently announced the fund’s first investment with Carlsbad, Calif.–based Virgo Surgical Video Solutions, which offers endoscopy video recording that uses artificial intelligence for ease of use during procedures, for reviewing video later, and for using video to connect trial investigators with potential candidates.

“While AGA has long guided innovators who share our goal of improving digestive health care, we have doubled down on this commitment by establishing the GI Opportunity Fund,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, AGA Governing Board Councilor for Development and Growth. “The fund’s first investment – Virgo – exemplifies our pursuit of improved clinical care.”

He said the fund gives physicians a chance to work closely with AGA to invest in difference-making ventures.

“Through our venture fund, gastroenterologists can join AGA to invest in fast-growing, early-stage companies that are transforming care for patients with digestive disease,” Dr. Kosinski said.

Virgo CEO Matthew Z. Schwartz said the company’s product is intended to fill an important need.

“We recognized that it was really difficult for doctors to capture endoscopy procedures video in high-definition at scale,” he said. “Generally, they were just taking still images. And the images were often not of great quality.”

Virgo offers a small device that connects to existing endoscopy equipment, plugging into the back of a video processor, securely compressing and encrypting video and sending it to Virgo’s HIPAA-compliant cloud storage Web portal. Once it’s plugged in, Mr. Schwartz said, it’s “set it and forget it.”

“We try to make it as easy as possible for doctors to record their video – which means we don’t want them to have to do anything different about their normal clinical workflow in order to generate these videos,” Mr. Schwartz said. Physicians don’t even have to press a start or stop button – Virgo’s machine-learning algorithm detects when to start and stop video recording by discerning when the scope is inserted and removed.

“A goal of ours is to change the paradigm for endoscopy to help make sure that every procedure is captured in HD to the cloud,” he said.

The service also includes an “auto-highlight” feature that detects important moments in the procedure video. It automatically marks points in the video when the physician takes a still image and moments when an instrument, such as a snare or forceps, is present in the field of view. This, Mr. Schwartz said, makes it “easy in playback to focus on important aspects of the procedure.”

There is also a clinical trial screening feature, called “auto IBD,” that involves an algorithm that assesses videos to identify patients most likely to be eligible candidates for clinical trials. Mr. Schwartz said that procedures and patients who might go unconsidered – if they are performed at an affiliated community hospital or at an endoscopy center, for instance – can now be brought to the attention of trial investigators, without the need to comb through hundreds or thousands of candidates.

“We believe there are many more patients with these diseases that are eligible for IBD clinical trials than are currently being exposed to research opportunities within large health systems,” he said.

The proceeds from the AGA’s Opportunity Fund will be used, in part, to expand Virgo’s reach, he added. Virgo’s connection with the AGA began with its participation in the AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank competition in 2018.

“For us, the name of the game is getting Virgo in the hands of as many physicians and health systems as possible,” Mr. Schwartz said. “So we’ll be using these proceeds to build up the team and work on global distribution.” The company is also “looking to refine machine-learning algorithms and build out new features and tools.”

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., was one of the Opportunity Fund’s earliest member investors.

“I was looking for ways to diversify my portfolio and this was an attractive way to get into an area of investment that is not easily accessible, and so I was excited about that,” said Dr. Gellad, who himself is cofounder of a health start-up that develops software for patient navigation and outcomes collection but is not associated with the fund.

“As a start-up cofounder myself, I understand the needs of founders of companies, especially those in the GI space and appreciate the struggles they face,” Dr. Gellad added. “The opportunity to contribute to that was appealing.”

“I also believe that specialty societies like the AGA need to diversify their funding strategy and I think this is a really innovative way to do that,” he said.

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

Approximately one-fifth of cervical cancer cases are diagnosed in women aged 65 years or older, and most of the cases are late-stage disease associated with poor survival rates. The new finding calls into question yet again the many national screening guidelines that advise physicians to halt cervical screening at age 65.

The findings emerged from an analysis of the California Cancer Registry for 2009-2018. The authors, from the University of California, Davis, who manage the registry on behalf of the state, found that 17% of women diagnosed with a first primary cancer were aged 65 years or older.

Up to 71% of these older women had late-stage disease vs. 34%-to 59% of women aged 21-64.

The team also found that older patients, even those with early disease, had much poorer survival after they were diagnosed with cervical cancer than their younger counterparts. For example, patients aged between 65 and 69 with stage I cervical cancer had a 5-year relative survival – that is, survival adjusted for noncancer causes of death – of 82%. By contrast, 94% of women aged 20-39 survived for at least 5 years.

The study was published on January 9 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

These new data echo similar findings from other recent cervical cancer studies out of California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and nationally. Those studies show that, in comparison with younger patients, rates of late-stage disease are higher and survival is poorer among women aged 65 and older.

Even so, a coauthor of the present study, Frances Maguire, PhD, who is an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, said she and her colleagues were surprised by what they found.

“There are a lot of women in this older-age category who are being diagnosed, and they’re being diagnosed later stage and their survival is worse,” Dr. Maguire said. “That was surprising to all of us,” given that the current recommendations are to stop screening once women reach the age of 65, and yet this age group is “doing quite poorly.”

The American Cancer Society, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with “adequate prior screening.”

Adequate screening is defined as having three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative cotests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and having no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

However, as many as 23% of women aged 60-64 report that their last Pap test was administered more than 5 years ago, according to a recent study by Alex Francoeur, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles.

When asked to comment on the new article, Dr. Francoeur said, “There is literature that increasing comorbidities and visits to the doctor [with age] decrease the likelihood of getting a Pap test, which is concerning, as these may be the highest-risk women.”

Said study author Dr. Maguire, “It could be that [the guidelines] are perfectly fine if women were properly screened before they hit 65, so that’s one of our big questions. Perhaps this group are not properly screened before age 65, and then they hit 65, they don’t screen, and this is the result we’re seeing.”

The situation is compounded by the lack of continuity in care at this crucial juncture, said Alexander Olawaiye, MD, a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, who was also approached for comment.

At age 65, many women retire, move across the country, or access new health care providers through Medicare, which kicks in at age 65, so the woman’s new physician doesn’t have access to her screening history, he commented.

This means that a physician needs to rely on the patient’s memory.

This is unrealistic, said Dr. Olawaiye: “Let’s forget about the 65-year-old women for now. Let’s talk about young women with sharp minds. Half of these young adults cannot even remember correctly their last monthly period. And these are the people you want to recollect accurately [at age 65] the number of tests they’ve had over 10 years and the results of those tests? Are you kidding me?” said Dr. Olawaiye. “Is that the kind of verification that you rely on?”

Dr. Olawaiye has consistently advocated for scrapping the 65+ screening moratorium in past and current versions of the cervical screening guidelines. He is puzzled by the national unwillingness to do so and rejects the economic argument, pointing out that a handful of extra tests is a lot cheaper than caring for a patient with advanced cervical cancer.

“Most American women will die around 84-85 years of age,” Dr. Olawaiye commented. “So between 65 and 85, you will need five screens, maybe four. What are you saving by not doing that?”

Dr. Maguire, Dr. Francoeur, and Dr. Olawaiye have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-fifth of cervical cancer cases are diagnosed in women aged 65 years or older, and most of the cases are late-stage disease associated with poor survival rates. The new finding calls into question yet again the many national screening guidelines that advise physicians to halt cervical screening at age 65.

The findings emerged from an analysis of the California Cancer Registry for 2009-2018. The authors, from the University of California, Davis, who manage the registry on behalf of the state, found that 17% of women diagnosed with a first primary cancer were aged 65 years or older.

Up to 71% of these older women had late-stage disease vs. 34%-to 59% of women aged 21-64.

The team also found that older patients, even those with early disease, had much poorer survival after they were diagnosed with cervical cancer than their younger counterparts. For example, patients aged between 65 and 69 with stage I cervical cancer had a 5-year relative survival – that is, survival adjusted for noncancer causes of death – of 82%. By contrast, 94% of women aged 20-39 survived for at least 5 years.

The study was published on January 9 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

These new data echo similar findings from other recent cervical cancer studies out of California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and nationally. Those studies show that, in comparison with younger patients, rates of late-stage disease are higher and survival is poorer among women aged 65 and older.

Even so, a coauthor of the present study, Frances Maguire, PhD, who is an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, said she and her colleagues were surprised by what they found.

“There are a lot of women in this older-age category who are being diagnosed, and they’re being diagnosed later stage and their survival is worse,” Dr. Maguire said. “That was surprising to all of us,” given that the current recommendations are to stop screening once women reach the age of 65, and yet this age group is “doing quite poorly.”

The American Cancer Society, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with “adequate prior screening.”

Adequate screening is defined as having three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative cotests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and having no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

However, as many as 23% of women aged 60-64 report that their last Pap test was administered more than 5 years ago, according to a recent study by Alex Francoeur, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles.

When asked to comment on the new article, Dr. Francoeur said, “There is literature that increasing comorbidities and visits to the doctor [with age] decrease the likelihood of getting a Pap test, which is concerning, as these may be the highest-risk women.”

Said study author Dr. Maguire, “It could be that [the guidelines] are perfectly fine if women were properly screened before they hit 65, so that’s one of our big questions. Perhaps this group are not properly screened before age 65, and then they hit 65, they don’t screen, and this is the result we’re seeing.”

The situation is compounded by the lack of continuity in care at this crucial juncture, said Alexander Olawaiye, MD, a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, who was also approached for comment.

At age 65, many women retire, move across the country, or access new health care providers through Medicare, which kicks in at age 65, so the woman’s new physician doesn’t have access to her screening history, he commented.

This means that a physician needs to rely on the patient’s memory.

This is unrealistic, said Dr. Olawaiye: “Let’s forget about the 65-year-old women for now. Let’s talk about young women with sharp minds. Half of these young adults cannot even remember correctly their last monthly period. And these are the people you want to recollect accurately [at age 65] the number of tests they’ve had over 10 years and the results of those tests? Are you kidding me?” said Dr. Olawaiye. “Is that the kind of verification that you rely on?”

Dr. Olawaiye has consistently advocated for scrapping the 65+ screening moratorium in past and current versions of the cervical screening guidelines. He is puzzled by the national unwillingness to do so and rejects the economic argument, pointing out that a handful of extra tests is a lot cheaper than caring for a patient with advanced cervical cancer.

“Most American women will die around 84-85 years of age,” Dr. Olawaiye commented. “So between 65 and 85, you will need five screens, maybe four. What are you saving by not doing that?”

Dr. Maguire, Dr. Francoeur, and Dr. Olawaiye have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-fifth of cervical cancer cases are diagnosed in women aged 65 years or older, and most of the cases are late-stage disease associated with poor survival rates. The new finding calls into question yet again the many national screening guidelines that advise physicians to halt cervical screening at age 65.

The findings emerged from an analysis of the California Cancer Registry for 2009-2018. The authors, from the University of California, Davis, who manage the registry on behalf of the state, found that 17% of women diagnosed with a first primary cancer were aged 65 years or older.

Up to 71% of these older women had late-stage disease vs. 34%-to 59% of women aged 21-64.

The team also found that older patients, even those with early disease, had much poorer survival after they were diagnosed with cervical cancer than their younger counterparts. For example, patients aged between 65 and 69 with stage I cervical cancer had a 5-year relative survival – that is, survival adjusted for noncancer causes of death – of 82%. By contrast, 94% of women aged 20-39 survived for at least 5 years.

The study was published on January 9 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

These new data echo similar findings from other recent cervical cancer studies out of California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and nationally. Those studies show that, in comparison with younger patients, rates of late-stage disease are higher and survival is poorer among women aged 65 and older.

Even so, a coauthor of the present study, Frances Maguire, PhD, who is an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, said she and her colleagues were surprised by what they found.

“There are a lot of women in this older-age category who are being diagnosed, and they’re being diagnosed later stage and their survival is worse,” Dr. Maguire said. “That was surprising to all of us,” given that the current recommendations are to stop screening once women reach the age of 65, and yet this age group is “doing quite poorly.”

The American Cancer Society, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with “adequate prior screening.”

Adequate screening is defined as having three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative cotests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and having no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

However, as many as 23% of women aged 60-64 report that their last Pap test was administered more than 5 years ago, according to a recent study by Alex Francoeur, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles.

When asked to comment on the new article, Dr. Francoeur said, “There is literature that increasing comorbidities and visits to the doctor [with age] decrease the likelihood of getting a Pap test, which is concerning, as these may be the highest-risk women.”

Said study author Dr. Maguire, “It could be that [the guidelines] are perfectly fine if women were properly screened before they hit 65, so that’s one of our big questions. Perhaps this group are not properly screened before age 65, and then they hit 65, they don’t screen, and this is the result we’re seeing.”

The situation is compounded by the lack of continuity in care at this crucial juncture, said Alexander Olawaiye, MD, a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, who was also approached for comment.

At age 65, many women retire, move across the country, or access new health care providers through Medicare, which kicks in at age 65, so the woman’s new physician doesn’t have access to her screening history, he commented.

This means that a physician needs to rely on the patient’s memory.

This is unrealistic, said Dr. Olawaiye: “Let’s forget about the 65-year-old women for now. Let’s talk about young women with sharp minds. Half of these young adults cannot even remember correctly their last monthly period. And these are the people you want to recollect accurately [at age 65] the number of tests they’ve had over 10 years and the results of those tests? Are you kidding me?” said Dr. Olawaiye. “Is that the kind of verification that you rely on?”

Dr. Olawaiye has consistently advocated for scrapping the 65+ screening moratorium in past and current versions of the cervical screening guidelines. He is puzzled by the national unwillingness to do so and rejects the economic argument, pointing out that a handful of extra tests is a lot cheaper than caring for a patient with advanced cervical cancer.

“Most American women will die around 84-85 years of age,” Dr. Olawaiye commented. “So between 65 and 85, you will need five screens, maybe four. What are you saving by not doing that?”

Dr. Maguire, Dr. Francoeur, and Dr. Olawaiye have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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