People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

Editor's Note: We periodically publish patient viewpoints on specific issues of interest to our audience.

I woke up in a strange bedroom with 24 electrodes glued all over my body and a plastic mask attached to a hose covering my face.

The lab technician who watched me all night via video feed told me that I had “wicked sleep apnea” and that it was “central sleep apnea” – a type that originates in the brain and fails to tell the muscles to inhale.

As a journalist– and one terrified by the diagnosis – I set out to do my own research. After a few weeks of sleuthing and interviewing experts, I reached two important conclusions.

First, I had moderate apnea, if that, and it could be treated without the elaborate machines, mouthpieces, or other devices that specialists who had consulted on my care were talking about.

Second, the American health care system has joined with commercial partners to define a medical condition – in this case, sleep apnea – in a way that allows both parties to generate revenue from a multitude of pricey diagnostic studies, equipment sales, and questionable treatments. I was on a conveyor belt.

It all began with a desire for answers: I had been feeling drowsy during the day, and my wife told me I snored. Both can mean obstructive sleep apnea. With obstructive sleep apnea, the mouth and throat relax when a person is unconscious, sometimes blocking or narrowing the airway. That interrupts breathing, as well as sleep. Without treatment, the resulting disruption in oxygen flow might increase the risk of developing certain cardiovascular diseases.

So I contacted a sleep-treatment center, and doctors gave me an at-home test ($365). Two weeks later, they told me I had “high-moderate” sleep apnea and needed to acquire a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, at a cost of about $600.

Though I had hoped to get the equipment and adjust the settings to see what worked best, my doctors said I had to come to the sleep lab for an overnight test ($1,900) to have them “titrate” the optimal CPAP air pressure.

“How do you treat central sleep apnea?” I worriedly asked the technician after that first overnight stay. She said something about an adaptive servo-ventilation machine ($4,000). And one pricey lab sleepover wasn’t enough, she said. I needed to come back for another.

(Most procedures and devices mentioned in this article were covered or would have been covered by insurance – in my case, Medicare, plus a supplemental plan. Unnecessary care is a big reason Americans’ insurance costs – premiums, copays, and deductibles – tend to rise year after year.)

As a journalist who spent years covering the business of health care, I found there was more motivating my expensive testing cascade than concerns about my health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, a nonprofit based near Chicago, decides what is sleep apnea and how to treat it. Working with sleep societies around the world, it publishes the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, relied on by doctors everywhere to diagnose and categorize disease.

But behind that effort lie considerable conflicts of interest. Like so much of U.S. health care, sleep medicine turns out to be a thriving industry. AASM finances its operations in part with payments from CPAP machine manufacturers and other companies that stand to profit from expensive treatments and expansive definitions of apnea and other sleep disorders.

Zoll Itamar, which makes the at-home testing device I used, as well as implantable nerve-stimulation hardware for central sleep apnea, is a $60,000, “platinum” partner in AASM’s Industry Engagement Program. So is Avadel Pharmaceuticals, which is testing a drug to treat narcolepsy, characterized by intense daytime sleepiness.

Other sponsors include the maker of an anti-insomnia drug; another company with a narcolepsy drug; Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, which makes CPAP machines and masks; and Inspire Medical Systems, maker of a heavily advertised surgical implant, costing tens of thousands of dollars, to treat apnea.

Corporate sponsors for Sleep 2022, a convention AASM put on in Charlotte, N.C., with other professional societies, included many of those companies, plus Philips Respironics and ResMed, two of the biggest CPAP machine makers.

In a statement, AASM spokesperson Jennifer Gibson said a conflict-of-interest policy and a noninterference pledge from industry funders protect the integrity of the academy’s work. Industry donations account for about $170,000 of AASM’s annual revenue of about $15 million. Other revenue comes from educational materials and membership and accreditation fees.

Here’s what else I found. Almost everybody breathes irregularly sometime at night, especially during REM sleep, characterized by rapid eye movement and dreams. Blood oxygen levels also fluctuate slightly.

But recent European studies have shown that standards under the International Classification of Sleep Disorders would doom huge portions of the general population to a sleep apnea diagnosis – whether or not people had complaints of daytime tiredness or other sleep problems.

A study in Lausanne, Switzerland, showed that 50% of local men and 23% of the women 40 or older were positive for sleep apnea under such criteria.

Such rates of disease are “extraordinarily high,” “astronomical,” and “implausible,” Dirk Pevernagie, PhD, a scientist at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, wrote with colleagues 2 years ago in a comprehensive study in the Journal of Sleep Research.

“Right now, there is no real evidence for the criteria that have been put forward to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea and rate its severity,” he said in an interview.

Likewise, 19% of middle-aged subjects in a 2016 Icelandic study appeared to have moderate to severe “apnea” under one definition in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders even though many reported no drowsiness.

“Most of them were really surprised,” said Erna Sif Arnardóttir, who led the study and is running a large European program to refine detection and treatment of apnea.

Nevertheless, the official AASM journal recommends extremely broad screening for sleep apnea, looking for patients who have what it defines as illness. Everybody 18 and older should be screened every year for apnea if they have diabetes, obesity, untreated high blood pressure, or heart disease – even if they have never complained about sleep problems, the group says.

AASM “continually evaluates the definitions, criteria and recommendations used in the identification of sleep apnea and other sleep disorders,” Ms. Gibson said in the statement. Meanwhile, routine screening by primary care doctors “is a simple way” of gauging whether a high-risk patient may have obstructive sleep apnea, the statement said.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an authoritative body that reviews the effectiveness of preventive care, takes a conservative view, more like that of the European researchers, concluding there is “insufficient” evidence to support widespread screening among patients with no symptoms.

Many insurers refuse to pay for CPAP machines and other treatments prescribed for people at the outer edges of the AASM’s apnea definition. But AASM is pressuring them to come around.

After all my reporting, I concluded that my apnea is real, though moderate. My alarming reading in the overnight lab – diagnosed quickly as central sleep apnea – was a byproduct of the testing machinery itself. That’s a well-described phenomenon that occurs in 5% to 15% of patients.

And when I looked closely at the results of my at-home diagnostic test, I had an epiphany: My overall score was 26 breathing interruptions and blood-oxygen level declines, on average, per hour – enough to put me in the “high-moderate” category for apnea. But when I looked at the data sorted according to sleeping positions, I saw that I scored much better when I slept on my side: only 10 interruptions in an hour.

So I did a little experiment: I bought a $25 pulse oximeter with a smartphone app that records oxygen dips and breathing interruptions. When I slept on my side, there were hardly any.

Now I sleep on my side. I snore less. I wake up refreshed. I’m not daytime drowsy.

None of my specialists mentioned turning on to my side – known in medical parlance as “positional therapy” – though the intervention is recognized as effective by many researchers. Sleeping on one’s back contributes to snoring and blockages, especially as people age and the muscles in the throat become looser.

“Positional patients ... can sleep in the lateral position and sleep quite well,” said Arie Oksenberg, PhD, a sleep researcher formerly at Loewenstein Hospital in Ra’anana, Israel.

But it’s not easy to find this in the official AASM treatment guidelines, which instead go right to the money-making options like CPAP machines, surgery, central apnea, and mouth appliances.

Dealing with apnea by shifting slightly in bed gets little more than a couple of paragraphs in AASM’s guideline on “other” treatments and a little box on a long and complex decision chart.

A third or more of patients wear CPAPs only a few hours a night or stop using them. It turns out people don’t like machines in their beds.

“Positional therapy is an effective treatment option for some patients,” said Ms. Gibson. But she said there are concerns about whether patients will sleep on their sides long term and whether trying to stay in one position might cause sleep interruptions itself.

It’s true that side-sleeping doesn’t help everybody. And it often takes practice. (Some people tape a tennis ball to their pajamas to keep them off their backs.) Even conservative sleep doctors say CPAP machines are the best solution for many patients.

But there is a largely overlooked alternative.

“Are we missing a simple treatment for most adult sleep apnea patients?” was the name of a 2013 paper that Dr. Oksenberg and a colleague wrote about positional therapy.

In my case, the answer was “yes.”

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.

Editor's Note: We periodically publish patient viewpoints on specific issues of interest to our audience.

I woke up in a strange bedroom with 24 electrodes glued all over my body and a plastic mask attached to a hose covering my face.

The lab technician who watched me all night via video feed told me that I had “wicked sleep apnea” and that it was “central sleep apnea” – a type that originates in the brain and fails to tell the muscles to inhale.

As a journalist– and one terrified by the diagnosis – I set out to do my own research. After a few weeks of sleuthing and interviewing experts, I reached two important conclusions.

First, I had moderate apnea, if that, and it could be treated without the elaborate machines, mouthpieces, or other devices that specialists who had consulted on my care were talking about.

Second, the American health care system has joined with commercial partners to define a medical condition – in this case, sleep apnea – in a way that allows both parties to generate revenue from a multitude of pricey diagnostic studies, equipment sales, and questionable treatments. I was on a conveyor belt.

It all began with a desire for answers: I had been feeling drowsy during the day, and my wife told me I snored. Both can mean obstructive sleep apnea. With obstructive sleep apnea, the mouth and throat relax when a person is unconscious, sometimes blocking or narrowing the airway. That interrupts breathing, as well as sleep. Without treatment, the resulting disruption in oxygen flow might increase the risk of developing certain cardiovascular diseases.

So I contacted a sleep-treatment center, and doctors gave me an at-home test ($365). Two weeks later, they told me I had “high-moderate” sleep apnea and needed to acquire a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, at a cost of about $600.

Though I had hoped to get the equipment and adjust the settings to see what worked best, my doctors said I had to come to the sleep lab for an overnight test ($1,900) to have them “titrate” the optimal CPAP air pressure.

“How do you treat central sleep apnea?” I worriedly asked the technician after that first overnight stay. She said something about an adaptive servo-ventilation machine ($4,000). And one pricey lab sleepover wasn’t enough, she said. I needed to come back for another.

(Most procedures and devices mentioned in this article were covered or would have been covered by insurance – in my case, Medicare, plus a supplemental plan. Unnecessary care is a big reason Americans’ insurance costs – premiums, copays, and deductibles – tend to rise year after year.)

As a journalist who spent years covering the business of health care, I found there was more motivating my expensive testing cascade than concerns about my health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, a nonprofit based near Chicago, decides what is sleep apnea and how to treat it. Working with sleep societies around the world, it publishes the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, relied on by doctors everywhere to diagnose and categorize disease.

But behind that effort lie considerable conflicts of interest. Like so much of U.S. health care, sleep medicine turns out to be a thriving industry. AASM finances its operations in part with payments from CPAP machine manufacturers and other companies that stand to profit from expensive treatments and expansive definitions of apnea and other sleep disorders.

Zoll Itamar, which makes the at-home testing device I used, as well as implantable nerve-stimulation hardware for central sleep apnea, is a $60,000, “platinum” partner in AASM’s Industry Engagement Program. So is Avadel Pharmaceuticals, which is testing a drug to treat narcolepsy, characterized by intense daytime sleepiness.

Other sponsors include the maker of an anti-insomnia drug; another company with a narcolepsy drug; Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, which makes CPAP machines and masks; and Inspire Medical Systems, maker of a heavily advertised surgical implant, costing tens of thousands of dollars, to treat apnea.

Corporate sponsors for Sleep 2022, a convention AASM put on in Charlotte, N.C., with other professional societies, included many of those companies, plus Philips Respironics and ResMed, two of the biggest CPAP machine makers.

In a statement, AASM spokesperson Jennifer Gibson said a conflict-of-interest policy and a noninterference pledge from industry funders protect the integrity of the academy’s work. Industry donations account for about $170,000 of AASM’s annual revenue of about $15 million. Other revenue comes from educational materials and membership and accreditation fees.

Here’s what else I found. Almost everybody breathes irregularly sometime at night, especially during REM sleep, characterized by rapid eye movement and dreams. Blood oxygen levels also fluctuate slightly.

But recent European studies have shown that standards under the International Classification of Sleep Disorders would doom huge portions of the general population to a sleep apnea diagnosis – whether or not people had complaints of daytime tiredness or other sleep problems.

A study in Lausanne, Switzerland, showed that 50% of local men and 23% of the women 40 or older were positive for sleep apnea under such criteria.

Such rates of disease are “extraordinarily high,” “astronomical,” and “implausible,” Dirk Pevernagie, PhD, a scientist at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, wrote with colleagues 2 years ago in a comprehensive study in the Journal of Sleep Research.

“Right now, there is no real evidence for the criteria that have been put forward to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea and rate its severity,” he said in an interview.

Likewise, 19% of middle-aged subjects in a 2016 Icelandic study appeared to have moderate to severe “apnea” under one definition in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders even though many reported no drowsiness.

“Most of them were really surprised,” said Erna Sif Arnardóttir, who led the study and is running a large European program to refine detection and treatment of apnea.

Nevertheless, the official AASM journal recommends extremely broad screening for sleep apnea, looking for patients who have what it defines as illness. Everybody 18 and older should be screened every year for apnea if they have diabetes, obesity, untreated high blood pressure, or heart disease – even if they have never complained about sleep problems, the group says.

AASM “continually evaluates the definitions, criteria and recommendations used in the identification of sleep apnea and other sleep disorders,” Ms. Gibson said in the statement. Meanwhile, routine screening by primary care doctors “is a simple way” of gauging whether a high-risk patient may have obstructive sleep apnea, the statement said.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an authoritative body that reviews the effectiveness of preventive care, takes a conservative view, more like that of the European researchers, concluding there is “insufficient” evidence to support widespread screening among patients with no symptoms.

Many insurers refuse to pay for CPAP machines and other treatments prescribed for people at the outer edges of the AASM’s apnea definition. But AASM is pressuring them to come around.

After all my reporting, I concluded that my apnea is real, though moderate. My alarming reading in the overnight lab – diagnosed quickly as central sleep apnea – was a byproduct of the testing machinery itself. That’s a well-described phenomenon that occurs in 5% to 15% of patients.

And when I looked closely at the results of my at-home diagnostic test, I had an epiphany: My overall score was 26 breathing interruptions and blood-oxygen level declines, on average, per hour – enough to put me in the “high-moderate” category for apnea. But when I looked at the data sorted according to sleeping positions, I saw that I scored much better when I slept on my side: only 10 interruptions in an hour.

So I did a little experiment: I bought a $25 pulse oximeter with a smartphone app that records oxygen dips and breathing interruptions. When I slept on my side, there were hardly any.

Now I sleep on my side. I snore less. I wake up refreshed. I’m not daytime drowsy.

None of my specialists mentioned turning on to my side – known in medical parlance as “positional therapy” – though the intervention is recognized as effective by many researchers. Sleeping on one’s back contributes to snoring and blockages, especially as people age and the muscles in the throat become looser.

“Positional patients ... can sleep in the lateral position and sleep quite well,” said Arie Oksenberg, PhD, a sleep researcher formerly at Loewenstein Hospital in Ra’anana, Israel.

But it’s not easy to find this in the official AASM treatment guidelines, which instead go right to the money-making options like CPAP machines, surgery, central apnea, and mouth appliances.

Dealing with apnea by shifting slightly in bed gets little more than a couple of paragraphs in AASM’s guideline on “other” treatments and a little box on a long and complex decision chart.

A third or more of patients wear CPAPs only a few hours a night or stop using them. It turns out people don’t like machines in their beds.

“Positional therapy is an effective treatment option for some patients,” said Ms. Gibson. But she said there are concerns about whether patients will sleep on their sides long term and whether trying to stay in one position might cause sleep interruptions itself.

It’s true that side-sleeping doesn’t help everybody. And it often takes practice. (Some people tape a tennis ball to their pajamas to keep them off their backs.) Even conservative sleep doctors say CPAP machines are the best solution for many patients.

But there is a largely overlooked alternative.

“Are we missing a simple treatment for most adult sleep apnea patients?” was the name of a 2013 paper that Dr. Oksenberg and a colleague wrote about positional therapy.

In my case, the answer was “yes.”

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.

Editor's Note: We periodically publish patient viewpoints on specific issues of interest to our audience.

I woke up in a strange bedroom with 24 electrodes glued all over my body and a plastic mask attached to a hose covering my face.

The lab technician who watched me all night via video feed told me that I had “wicked sleep apnea” and that it was “central sleep apnea” – a type that originates in the brain and fails to tell the muscles to inhale.

As a journalist– and one terrified by the diagnosis – I set out to do my own research. After a few weeks of sleuthing and interviewing experts, I reached two important conclusions.

First, I had moderate apnea, if that, and it could be treated without the elaborate machines, mouthpieces, or other devices that specialists who had consulted on my care were talking about.

Second, the American health care system has joined with commercial partners to define a medical condition – in this case, sleep apnea – in a way that allows both parties to generate revenue from a multitude of pricey diagnostic studies, equipment sales, and questionable treatments. I was on a conveyor belt.

It all began with a desire for answers: I had been feeling drowsy during the day, and my wife told me I snored. Both can mean obstructive sleep apnea. With obstructive sleep apnea, the mouth and throat relax when a person is unconscious, sometimes blocking or narrowing the airway. That interrupts breathing, as well as sleep. Without treatment, the resulting disruption in oxygen flow might increase the risk of developing certain cardiovascular diseases.

So I contacted a sleep-treatment center, and doctors gave me an at-home test ($365). Two weeks later, they told me I had “high-moderate” sleep apnea and needed to acquire a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, at a cost of about $600.

Though I had hoped to get the equipment and adjust the settings to see what worked best, my doctors said I had to come to the sleep lab for an overnight test ($1,900) to have them “titrate” the optimal CPAP air pressure.

“How do you treat central sleep apnea?” I worriedly asked the technician after that first overnight stay. She said something about an adaptive servo-ventilation machine ($4,000). And one pricey lab sleepover wasn’t enough, she said. I needed to come back for another.

(Most procedures and devices mentioned in this article were covered or would have been covered by insurance – in my case, Medicare, plus a supplemental plan. Unnecessary care is a big reason Americans’ insurance costs – premiums, copays, and deductibles – tend to rise year after year.)

As a journalist who spent years covering the business of health care, I found there was more motivating my expensive testing cascade than concerns about my health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, a nonprofit based near Chicago, decides what is sleep apnea and how to treat it. Working with sleep societies around the world, it publishes the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, relied on by doctors everywhere to diagnose and categorize disease.

But behind that effort lie considerable conflicts of interest. Like so much of U.S. health care, sleep medicine turns out to be a thriving industry. AASM finances its operations in part with payments from CPAP machine manufacturers and other companies that stand to profit from expensive treatments and expansive definitions of apnea and other sleep disorders.

Zoll Itamar, which makes the at-home testing device I used, as well as implantable nerve-stimulation hardware for central sleep apnea, is a $60,000, “platinum” partner in AASM’s Industry Engagement Program. So is Avadel Pharmaceuticals, which is testing a drug to treat narcolepsy, characterized by intense daytime sleepiness.

Other sponsors include the maker of an anti-insomnia drug; another company with a narcolepsy drug; Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, which makes CPAP machines and masks; and Inspire Medical Systems, maker of a heavily advertised surgical implant, costing tens of thousands of dollars, to treat apnea.

Corporate sponsors for Sleep 2022, a convention AASM put on in Charlotte, N.C., with other professional societies, included many of those companies, plus Philips Respironics and ResMed, two of the biggest CPAP machine makers.

In a statement, AASM spokesperson Jennifer Gibson said a conflict-of-interest policy and a noninterference pledge from industry funders protect the integrity of the academy’s work. Industry donations account for about $170,000 of AASM’s annual revenue of about $15 million. Other revenue comes from educational materials and membership and accreditation fees.

Here’s what else I found. Almost everybody breathes irregularly sometime at night, especially during REM sleep, characterized by rapid eye movement and dreams. Blood oxygen levels also fluctuate slightly.

But recent European studies have shown that standards under the International Classification of Sleep Disorders would doom huge portions of the general population to a sleep apnea diagnosis – whether or not people had complaints of daytime tiredness or other sleep problems.

A study in Lausanne, Switzerland, showed that 50% of local men and 23% of the women 40 or older were positive for sleep apnea under such criteria.

Such rates of disease are “extraordinarily high,” “astronomical,” and “implausible,” Dirk Pevernagie, PhD, a scientist at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, wrote with colleagues 2 years ago in a comprehensive study in the Journal of Sleep Research.

“Right now, there is no real evidence for the criteria that have been put forward to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea and rate its severity,” he said in an interview.

Likewise, 19% of middle-aged subjects in a 2016 Icelandic study appeared to have moderate to severe “apnea” under one definition in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders even though many reported no drowsiness.

“Most of them were really surprised,” said Erna Sif Arnardóttir, who led the study and is running a large European program to refine detection and treatment of apnea.

Nevertheless, the official AASM journal recommends extremely broad screening for sleep apnea, looking for patients who have what it defines as illness. Everybody 18 and older should be screened every year for apnea if they have diabetes, obesity, untreated high blood pressure, or heart disease – even if they have never complained about sleep problems, the group says.

AASM “continually evaluates the definitions, criteria and recommendations used in the identification of sleep apnea and other sleep disorders,” Ms. Gibson said in the statement. Meanwhile, routine screening by primary care doctors “is a simple way” of gauging whether a high-risk patient may have obstructive sleep apnea, the statement said.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an authoritative body that reviews the effectiveness of preventive care, takes a conservative view, more like that of the European researchers, concluding there is “insufficient” evidence to support widespread screening among patients with no symptoms.

Many insurers refuse to pay for CPAP machines and other treatments prescribed for people at the outer edges of the AASM’s apnea definition. But AASM is pressuring them to come around.

After all my reporting, I concluded that my apnea is real, though moderate. My alarming reading in the overnight lab – diagnosed quickly as central sleep apnea – was a byproduct of the testing machinery itself. That’s a well-described phenomenon that occurs in 5% to 15% of patients.

And when I looked closely at the results of my at-home diagnostic test, I had an epiphany: My overall score was 26 breathing interruptions and blood-oxygen level declines, on average, per hour – enough to put me in the “high-moderate” category for apnea. But when I looked at the data sorted according to sleeping positions, I saw that I scored much better when I slept on my side: only 10 interruptions in an hour.

So I did a little experiment: I bought a $25 pulse oximeter with a smartphone app that records oxygen dips and breathing interruptions. When I slept on my side, there were hardly any.

Now I sleep on my side. I snore less. I wake up refreshed. I’m not daytime drowsy.

None of my specialists mentioned turning on to my side – known in medical parlance as “positional therapy” – though the intervention is recognized as effective by many researchers. Sleeping on one’s back contributes to snoring and blockages, especially as people age and the muscles in the throat become looser.

“Positional patients ... can sleep in the lateral position and sleep quite well,” said Arie Oksenberg, PhD, a sleep researcher formerly at Loewenstein Hospital in Ra’anana, Israel.

But it’s not easy to find this in the official AASM treatment guidelines, which instead go right to the money-making options like CPAP machines, surgery, central apnea, and mouth appliances.

Dealing with apnea by shifting slightly in bed gets little more than a couple of paragraphs in AASM’s guideline on “other” treatments and a little box on a long and complex decision chart.

A third or more of patients wear CPAPs only a few hours a night or stop using them. It turns out people don’t like machines in their beds.

“Positional therapy is an effective treatment option for some patients,” said Ms. Gibson. But she said there are concerns about whether patients will sleep on their sides long term and whether trying to stay in one position might cause sleep interruptions itself.

It’s true that side-sleeping doesn’t help everybody. And it often takes practice. (Some people tape a tennis ball to their pajamas to keep them off their backs.) Even conservative sleep doctors say CPAP machines are the best solution for many patients.

But there is a largely overlooked alternative.

“Are we missing a simple treatment for most adult sleep apnea patients?” was the name of a 2013 paper that Dr. Oksenberg and a colleague wrote about positional therapy.

In my case, the answer was “yes.”

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.

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

The Nobel Committee announced Oct. 3 it was awarding Svante Pääbo, PhD, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2022 for his “pioneering research” into ancient DNA.

It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.

“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”

Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.

In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.

“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.

In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.

“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.

“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”

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

The Nobel Committee announced Oct. 3 it was awarding Svante Pääbo, PhD, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2022 for his “pioneering research” into ancient DNA.

It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.

“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”

Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.

In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.

“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.

In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.

“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.

“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”

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

The Nobel Committee announced Oct. 3 it was awarding Svante Pääbo, PhD, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2022 for his “pioneering research” into ancient DNA.

It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.

“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”

Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.

In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.

“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.

In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.

“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.

“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

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.

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

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.

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

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.

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

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