John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

When dermatologists are uncertain about a diagnosis, they might seek help from a book or book chapter written by Dirk M. Elston, MD, a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology and the American Society of Dermatopathology who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.

After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.

In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.

Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.

Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.

What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.

Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?

Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.

How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.

You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.

Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.

Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.

When dermatologists are uncertain about a diagnosis, they might seek help from a book or book chapter written by Dirk M. Elston, MD, a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology and the American Society of Dermatopathology who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.

After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.

In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.

Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.

Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.

What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.

Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?

Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.

How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.

You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.

Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.

Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.

When dermatologists are uncertain about a diagnosis, they might seek help from a book or book chapter written by Dirk M. Elston, MD, a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology and the American Society of Dermatopathology who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.

After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.

In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.

Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.

Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.

What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.

Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?

Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.

How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.

You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.

Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.

Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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