Weight loss in otherwise healthy older adults is linked to an increased risk of mortality, even from conditions not typically associated with weight change, with a substantially stronger link in men versus women, suggesting the need for clinicians to be alert to such changes.

“Our study emphasizes the importance of weight loss even in relatively healthy individuals who are free from evident cardiovascular disease [CVD], dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness,” first author Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should be aware that even minor weight loss of 5% or more in older adults without life-limiting illnesses can increase mortality risk,” Dr. Hussain said. “Regular monitoring of weight changes can help early identification of associated risks.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers noted that data on the significance of weight changes among older individuals who are otherwise relatively healthy and not diagnosed with life-limited diseases are limited, with the exception that “it is widely acknowledged that weight loss may precede a diagnosis of cancer.” But the association with the other types of non–cancer-related premature death is notable.

“In our study, weight loss also preceded an increased mortality from CVD and other causes, [such as] deaths from trauma, dementia, Parkinson disease, and other less common causes.”

Therefore, “a likely explanation for these findings is that weight loss can be an early prodromal indicator of the presence of various life-shortening diseases,” Dr. Hussain, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues wrote.

In terms of why weight loss shows such a stronger link to mortality in older men, compared with women, Dr. Hussain speculated that this may be caused by “differences in body composition,” between the two sexes. “Men have a higher proportion of muscle and bone mass, and weight loss [in men] primarily involves loss of these tissues.”
 

10% weight loss quadrupled risk of premature death among men

To investigate this phenomenon, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized trial, which included information on a variety of body size parameters, such as weight and waist circumference, measured annually, from a large population of healthy individuals with no evident CVD, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The 16,523 participants included in the study had a mean age of 75 years and 55.6% were women. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 1,256 deaths occurred in the cohort.

Looking at rates of all-cause mortality, stratified by gender, the results showed that among men who had a 5%-10% decrease in weight over the course of the study, the risk of all-cause mortality was 33% higher than that of men who had a stable weight (less than 5% change; hazard ratio, 1.33).

Among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight, the mortality risk was as much as 289%, or nearly four times higher compared with those with a stable weight (HR, 3.89).

For women, the mortality risk was also increased, however, to a lesser degree. A 5%-10% loss of body weight was associated with a 26% increased mortality risk (HR, 1.26), and a loss of more than 10% was linked to a 114% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.14).

In terms of cancer-specific deaths, the risk was significantly increased only among men who had a greater than 10% weight decrease (HR, 3.49), while the increased risk in women was observed with a 5%-10% decrease in weight (HR, 1.44) as well as a more than 10% decrease (HR, 2.78).

The risk of CVD-specific death was significantly increased with a more than 10% decrease in weight in both sexes, but the risk was again higher among men (HR, 3.14) than women (HR, 1.92), compared with stable weight groups.

And the noncancer, non–CVD-specific mortality risk was nearly five times higher among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight versus stable weight (HR, 4.98); however, the association was not significant among women (HR, 1.49).

Looking at the effects of change in waist circumference, a decrease of more than 10% was associated with a higher risk in all-cause mortality that was again higher for men (HR, 2.14) versus women (HR, 1.34); however, no link with all-cause mortality was observed with a less than 10% decrease in either sex.

A greater than 10% decrease in waist circumference was also associated with higher risk of cancer death for men and women, and higher noncancer, non-CVD death among men, but not women, while there was no association between waist circumference and CVD mortality in men or women.
 

Association with mortality remained after adjustment for hospitalization

The results persisted after adjustment for age, frailty status, baseline body mass index, country of birth, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and hospitalization in the previous 24 months.

The adjustment for recent hospitalization was especially important for ruling out weight loss that may have occurred because of hospitalization for acute conditions that could have contributed to mortality, the authors noted.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight loss in otherwise healthy older adults is linked to an increased risk of mortality, even from conditions not typically associated with weight change, with a substantially stronger link in men versus women, suggesting the need for clinicians to be alert to such changes.

“Our study emphasizes the importance of weight loss even in relatively healthy individuals who are free from evident cardiovascular disease [CVD], dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness,” first author Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should be aware that even minor weight loss of 5% or more in older adults without life-limiting illnesses can increase mortality risk,” Dr. Hussain said. “Regular monitoring of weight changes can help early identification of associated risks.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers noted that data on the significance of weight changes among older individuals who are otherwise relatively healthy and not diagnosed with life-limited diseases are limited, with the exception that “it is widely acknowledged that weight loss may precede a diagnosis of cancer.” But the association with the other types of non–cancer-related premature death is notable.

“In our study, weight loss also preceded an increased mortality from CVD and other causes, [such as] deaths from trauma, dementia, Parkinson disease, and other less common causes.”

Therefore, “a likely explanation for these findings is that weight loss can be an early prodromal indicator of the presence of various life-shortening diseases,” Dr. Hussain, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues wrote.

In terms of why weight loss shows such a stronger link to mortality in older men, compared with women, Dr. Hussain speculated that this may be caused by “differences in body composition,” between the two sexes. “Men have a higher proportion of muscle and bone mass, and weight loss [in men] primarily involves loss of these tissues.”
 

10% weight loss quadrupled risk of premature death among men

To investigate this phenomenon, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized trial, which included information on a variety of body size parameters, such as weight and waist circumference, measured annually, from a large population of healthy individuals with no evident CVD, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The 16,523 participants included in the study had a mean age of 75 years and 55.6% were women. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 1,256 deaths occurred in the cohort.

Looking at rates of all-cause mortality, stratified by gender, the results showed that among men who had a 5%-10% decrease in weight over the course of the study, the risk of all-cause mortality was 33% higher than that of men who had a stable weight (less than 5% change; hazard ratio, 1.33).

Among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight, the mortality risk was as much as 289%, or nearly four times higher compared with those with a stable weight (HR, 3.89).

For women, the mortality risk was also increased, however, to a lesser degree. A 5%-10% loss of body weight was associated with a 26% increased mortality risk (HR, 1.26), and a loss of more than 10% was linked to a 114% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.14).

In terms of cancer-specific deaths, the risk was significantly increased only among men who had a greater than 10% weight decrease (HR, 3.49), while the increased risk in women was observed with a 5%-10% decrease in weight (HR, 1.44) as well as a more than 10% decrease (HR, 2.78).

The risk of CVD-specific death was significantly increased with a more than 10% decrease in weight in both sexes, but the risk was again higher among men (HR, 3.14) than women (HR, 1.92), compared with stable weight groups.

And the noncancer, non–CVD-specific mortality risk was nearly five times higher among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight versus stable weight (HR, 4.98); however, the association was not significant among women (HR, 1.49).

Looking at the effects of change in waist circumference, a decrease of more than 10% was associated with a higher risk in all-cause mortality that was again higher for men (HR, 2.14) versus women (HR, 1.34); however, no link with all-cause mortality was observed with a less than 10% decrease in either sex.

A greater than 10% decrease in waist circumference was also associated with higher risk of cancer death for men and women, and higher noncancer, non-CVD death among men, but not women, while there was no association between waist circumference and CVD mortality in men or women.
 

Association with mortality remained after adjustment for hospitalization

The results persisted after adjustment for age, frailty status, baseline body mass index, country of birth, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and hospitalization in the previous 24 months.

The adjustment for recent hospitalization was especially important for ruling out weight loss that may have occurred because of hospitalization for acute conditions that could have contributed to mortality, the authors noted.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight loss in otherwise healthy older adults is linked to an increased risk of mortality, even from conditions not typically associated with weight change, with a substantially stronger link in men versus women, suggesting the need for clinicians to be alert to such changes.

“Our study emphasizes the importance of weight loss even in relatively healthy individuals who are free from evident cardiovascular disease [CVD], dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness,” first author Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should be aware that even minor weight loss of 5% or more in older adults without life-limiting illnesses can increase mortality risk,” Dr. Hussain said. “Regular monitoring of weight changes can help early identification of associated risks.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers noted that data on the significance of weight changes among older individuals who are otherwise relatively healthy and not diagnosed with life-limited diseases are limited, with the exception that “it is widely acknowledged that weight loss may precede a diagnosis of cancer.” But the association with the other types of non–cancer-related premature death is notable.

“In our study, weight loss also preceded an increased mortality from CVD and other causes, [such as] deaths from trauma, dementia, Parkinson disease, and other less common causes.”

Therefore, “a likely explanation for these findings is that weight loss can be an early prodromal indicator of the presence of various life-shortening diseases,” Dr. Hussain, of Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues wrote.

In terms of why weight loss shows such a stronger link to mortality in older men, compared with women, Dr. Hussain speculated that this may be caused by “differences in body composition,” between the two sexes. “Men have a higher proportion of muscle and bone mass, and weight loss [in men] primarily involves loss of these tissues.”
 

10% weight loss quadrupled risk of premature death among men

To investigate this phenomenon, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized trial, which included information on a variety of body size parameters, such as weight and waist circumference, measured annually, from a large population of healthy individuals with no evident CVD, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The 16,523 participants included in the study had a mean age of 75 years and 55.6% were women. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 1,256 deaths occurred in the cohort.

Looking at rates of all-cause mortality, stratified by gender, the results showed that among men who had a 5%-10% decrease in weight over the course of the study, the risk of all-cause mortality was 33% higher than that of men who had a stable weight (less than 5% change; hazard ratio, 1.33).

Among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight, the mortality risk was as much as 289%, or nearly four times higher compared with those with a stable weight (HR, 3.89).

For women, the mortality risk was also increased, however, to a lesser degree. A 5%-10% loss of body weight was associated with a 26% increased mortality risk (HR, 1.26), and a loss of more than 10% was linked to a 114% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.14).

In terms of cancer-specific deaths, the risk was significantly increased only among men who had a greater than 10% weight decrease (HR, 3.49), while the increased risk in women was observed with a 5%-10% decrease in weight (HR, 1.44) as well as a more than 10% decrease (HR, 2.78).

The risk of CVD-specific death was significantly increased with a more than 10% decrease in weight in both sexes, but the risk was again higher among men (HR, 3.14) than women (HR, 1.92), compared with stable weight groups.

And the noncancer, non–CVD-specific mortality risk was nearly five times higher among men who had a more than 10% decrease in weight versus stable weight (HR, 4.98); however, the association was not significant among women (HR, 1.49).

Looking at the effects of change in waist circumference, a decrease of more than 10% was associated with a higher risk in all-cause mortality that was again higher for men (HR, 2.14) versus women (HR, 1.34); however, no link with all-cause mortality was observed with a less than 10% decrease in either sex.

A greater than 10% decrease in waist circumference was also associated with higher risk of cancer death for men and women, and higher noncancer, non-CVD death among men, but not women, while there was no association between waist circumference and CVD mortality in men or women.
 

Association with mortality remained after adjustment for hospitalization

The results persisted after adjustment for age, frailty status, baseline body mass index, country of birth, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and hospitalization in the previous 24 months.

The adjustment for recent hospitalization was especially important for ruling out weight loss that may have occurred because of hospitalization for acute conditions that could have contributed to mortality, the authors noted.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

Among patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma (DM), a prospective trial showed that single-agent treatment with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab led to a dramatic overall response rate.

The findings could represent a new standard of treatment for this extremely rare tumor.

The study was inspired by a previous retrospective analysis which found an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response of 32% to anti–PD-1 monotherapy.

The ORR is about double what is seen in melanoma more generally, according to Kari Kendra, MD, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Our study was a positive study. Of note, in the retrospective study, they saw a complete response rate of 32%, which was amazingly similar to what we found. [The findings support] the use of single agent anti–PD-1 immunotherapy as first line treatment for most patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma. [There was 89% overall response and we saw] dramatic responses across the board,” said Dr. Kendra, who is a medical oncologist at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The findings drew a strong reaction. “In a rare tumor session, to see response curves like that, it’s just outstanding,” said the session’s cochair Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, who is a professor of medical oncology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“This really is one of the highest tumor response rates to immunotherapy that we are seeing in any cancer. And I think may also highlight the fact that we shouldn’t think of all cutaneous melanomas as one disease, given the heterogeneity in tumor responses based on some of the pathologic and molecular characteristics,” said Zeynep Aroglu, MD, who served as a discussant but was also one of the investigators who enrolled patients for the trial.

Desmoplastic melanoma represents about 4% of all cutaneous melanoma diagnoses, and its unique pathology can make it difficult to diagnose. That often leads to a late diagnosis, according to Dr. Aroglu. They typically occur in elderly patients, in the head and neck area, and are associated with sun exposure. DM also tends to have a high mutation burden, Dr. Aroglu said during the session.

It remains to be seen why there is such a high response rate in this tumor type, even among tumor types with mutation burdens that are nearly as high. DM tumors are often driven by neurofibromatosis type 1, but other tumors driven by NF-1 don’t have as high of a response rate to immunotherapy. The tumor environment could also play a role, she said.

“Is it a combination of all these factors? I think some of the ongoing analysis of tumor samples that Dr. Kendra mentioned may help to answer some of these questions,” Dr. Aroglu continued.

She also noted that the melanoma field is increasingly turning to combination of anti–PD-1 therapy with agents like that target LAG3 or CTLA4. Such combinations can achieve higher response rates, but at a cost of higher rates of grade 3-4 adverse events than anti–PD-1 inhibitors alone. “I wonder if for desmoplastic melanomas in light of this data, do we consider de-escalating therapy, given these very high response rates to PD-1 alone, given also the elderly age of many of these patients, because even the PD-1–LAG3 combo still has a higher rate of toxicity than PD-1 monotherapy. Perhaps the immunotherapy combinations can be reserved for those rare desmoplastic patients who are resistant to PD-1 alone,” said Dr. Aroglu.
 

Study details and adverse events

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the study; 93% were male, all were White, and 22% had elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase. About 63% had disease located in the head and neck area, 33% experienced a complete response (P < .001), and 56% had a partial response for an ORR of 89%. The result surpassed the primary endpoint target of at least a 20% complete response rate.

The 2-year progression-free survival was 74%, and 2-year overall survival was 89%. The most common toxicities were fatigue (56%), diarrhea (33%), maculopapular rash (30%), pruritus (22%), anemia (19%), arthralgia (19%), and decreased lymphocyte count (19%). There were two grade 4 adverse events: a lipase increase and a lung infection accompanied by sepsis.

The researchers also carried out whole exome sequencing of biopsies and found that 67% had NF-1 loss of function mutations.

Dr. Aroglu has served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Array, Eisai, Genentech, Natera, Novartis, OncoSec, and Regeneron. She has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Novartis. Dr. Kendra has received institutional support from Bristol Myers-Squibb and trial support from CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Medspace, Merck, Novartis, and Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Van Tine has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies.

Among patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma (DM), a prospective trial showed that single-agent treatment with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab led to a dramatic overall response rate.

The findings could represent a new standard of treatment for this extremely rare tumor.

The study was inspired by a previous retrospective analysis which found an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response of 32% to anti–PD-1 monotherapy.

The ORR is about double what is seen in melanoma more generally, according to Kari Kendra, MD, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Our study was a positive study. Of note, in the retrospective study, they saw a complete response rate of 32%, which was amazingly similar to what we found. [The findings support] the use of single agent anti–PD-1 immunotherapy as first line treatment for most patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma. [There was 89% overall response and we saw] dramatic responses across the board,” said Dr. Kendra, who is a medical oncologist at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The findings drew a strong reaction. “In a rare tumor session, to see response curves like that, it’s just outstanding,” said the session’s cochair Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, who is a professor of medical oncology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“This really is one of the highest tumor response rates to immunotherapy that we are seeing in any cancer. And I think may also highlight the fact that we shouldn’t think of all cutaneous melanomas as one disease, given the heterogeneity in tumor responses based on some of the pathologic and molecular characteristics,” said Zeynep Aroglu, MD, who served as a discussant but was also one of the investigators who enrolled patients for the trial.

Desmoplastic melanoma represents about 4% of all cutaneous melanoma diagnoses, and its unique pathology can make it difficult to diagnose. That often leads to a late diagnosis, according to Dr. Aroglu. They typically occur in elderly patients, in the head and neck area, and are associated with sun exposure. DM also tends to have a high mutation burden, Dr. Aroglu said during the session.

It remains to be seen why there is such a high response rate in this tumor type, even among tumor types with mutation burdens that are nearly as high. DM tumors are often driven by neurofibromatosis type 1, but other tumors driven by NF-1 don’t have as high of a response rate to immunotherapy. The tumor environment could also play a role, she said.

“Is it a combination of all these factors? I think some of the ongoing analysis of tumor samples that Dr. Kendra mentioned may help to answer some of these questions,” Dr. Aroglu continued.

She also noted that the melanoma field is increasingly turning to combination of anti–PD-1 therapy with agents like that target LAG3 or CTLA4. Such combinations can achieve higher response rates, but at a cost of higher rates of grade 3-4 adverse events than anti–PD-1 inhibitors alone. “I wonder if for desmoplastic melanomas in light of this data, do we consider de-escalating therapy, given these very high response rates to PD-1 alone, given also the elderly age of many of these patients, because even the PD-1–LAG3 combo still has a higher rate of toxicity than PD-1 monotherapy. Perhaps the immunotherapy combinations can be reserved for those rare desmoplastic patients who are resistant to PD-1 alone,” said Dr. Aroglu.
 

Study details and adverse events

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the study; 93% were male, all were White, and 22% had elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase. About 63% had disease located in the head and neck area, 33% experienced a complete response (P < .001), and 56% had a partial response for an ORR of 89%. The result surpassed the primary endpoint target of at least a 20% complete response rate.

The 2-year progression-free survival was 74%, and 2-year overall survival was 89%. The most common toxicities were fatigue (56%), diarrhea (33%), maculopapular rash (30%), pruritus (22%), anemia (19%), arthralgia (19%), and decreased lymphocyte count (19%). There were two grade 4 adverse events: a lipase increase and a lung infection accompanied by sepsis.

The researchers also carried out whole exome sequencing of biopsies and found that 67% had NF-1 loss of function mutations.

Dr. Aroglu has served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Array, Eisai, Genentech, Natera, Novartis, OncoSec, and Regeneron. She has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Novartis. Dr. Kendra has received institutional support from Bristol Myers-Squibb and trial support from CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Medspace, Merck, Novartis, and Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Van Tine has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies.

Among patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma (DM), a prospective trial showed that single-agent treatment with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab led to a dramatic overall response rate.

The findings could represent a new standard of treatment for this extremely rare tumor.

The study was inspired by a previous retrospective analysis which found an overall response rate of 77% and a complete response of 32% to anti–PD-1 monotherapy.

The ORR is about double what is seen in melanoma more generally, according to Kari Kendra, MD, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Our study was a positive study. Of note, in the retrospective study, they saw a complete response rate of 32%, which was amazingly similar to what we found. [The findings support] the use of single agent anti–PD-1 immunotherapy as first line treatment for most patients with unresectable desmoplastic melanoma. [There was 89% overall response and we saw] dramatic responses across the board,” said Dr. Kendra, who is a medical oncologist at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The findings drew a strong reaction. “In a rare tumor session, to see response curves like that, it’s just outstanding,” said the session’s cochair Brian Van Tine, MD, PhD, who is a professor of medical oncology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“This really is one of the highest tumor response rates to immunotherapy that we are seeing in any cancer. And I think may also highlight the fact that we shouldn’t think of all cutaneous melanomas as one disease, given the heterogeneity in tumor responses based on some of the pathologic and molecular characteristics,” said Zeynep Aroglu, MD, who served as a discussant but was also one of the investigators who enrolled patients for the trial.

Desmoplastic melanoma represents about 4% of all cutaneous melanoma diagnoses, and its unique pathology can make it difficult to diagnose. That often leads to a late diagnosis, according to Dr. Aroglu. They typically occur in elderly patients, in the head and neck area, and are associated with sun exposure. DM also tends to have a high mutation burden, Dr. Aroglu said during the session.

It remains to be seen why there is such a high response rate in this tumor type, even among tumor types with mutation burdens that are nearly as high. DM tumors are often driven by neurofibromatosis type 1, but other tumors driven by NF-1 don’t have as high of a response rate to immunotherapy. The tumor environment could also play a role, she said.

“Is it a combination of all these factors? I think some of the ongoing analysis of tumor samples that Dr. Kendra mentioned may help to answer some of these questions,” Dr. Aroglu continued.

She also noted that the melanoma field is increasingly turning to combination of anti–PD-1 therapy with agents like that target LAG3 or CTLA4. Such combinations can achieve higher response rates, but at a cost of higher rates of grade 3-4 adverse events than anti–PD-1 inhibitors alone. “I wonder if for desmoplastic melanomas in light of this data, do we consider de-escalating therapy, given these very high response rates to PD-1 alone, given also the elderly age of many of these patients, because even the PD-1–LAG3 combo still has a higher rate of toxicity than PD-1 monotherapy. Perhaps the immunotherapy combinations can be reserved for those rare desmoplastic patients who are resistant to PD-1 alone,” said Dr. Aroglu.
 

Study details and adverse events

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the study; 93% were male, all were White, and 22% had elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase. About 63% had disease located in the head and neck area, 33% experienced a complete response (P < .001), and 56% had a partial response for an ORR of 89%. The result surpassed the primary endpoint target of at least a 20% complete response rate.

The 2-year progression-free survival was 74%, and 2-year overall survival was 89%. The most common toxicities were fatigue (56%), diarrhea (33%), maculopapular rash (30%), pruritus (22%), anemia (19%), arthralgia (19%), and decreased lymphocyte count (19%). There were two grade 4 adverse events: a lipase increase and a lung infection accompanied by sepsis.

The researchers also carried out whole exome sequencing of biopsies and found that 67% had NF-1 loss of function mutations.

Dr. Aroglu has served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Array, Eisai, Genentech, Natera, Novartis, OncoSec, and Regeneron. She has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Novartis. Dr. Kendra has received institutional support from Bristol Myers-Squibb and trial support from CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Medspace, Merck, Novartis, and Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Van Tine has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies.

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE & LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

The World Health Organization estimates significant air pollution–attributable deaths, including 11% of lung cancer deaths, 18% of COPD deaths, and 23% of pneumonia deaths (www.who.org). Many pulmonologists recommend minimizing air pollution exposure to reduce the development and progression of lung diseases (Carlsten C, et al. Europ Respir J. 2020;55[6]: 1902056).

The Environmental Protection Agency uses air quality (AQ) monitors around the country to track ambient pollution levels. These real-time data are available to the public on AirNow.gov; however, these data do not reflect indoor air pollutants. Thus, AQ monitors may not accurately represent the total air pollution exposure to patients.

Low-cost AQ monitors available for purchase enable indoor AQ monitoring.

Unfortunately, many indoor air pollutants do not have well-established safe levels. Although several devices detect specific pollutants like volatile oxygen compounds or particulate matter, other harmful compounds may remain undetectable and unmonitored. Even if high pollutant levels are detected, most devices are not designed to alarm like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors (www.epa.gov).

Although efficacy data are limited, several laboratories, such as the Indoor Environment Lab at Berkeley, have conducted performance evaluations. In a study of 16 devices publicly available for purchase, the devices tended to underreport pollutant levels by nearly 50%. Nevertheless, most devices successfully detected the presence of pollutants (Demanega I, et al. Building and Environment. 2021;187:107415).

Regardless of these limitations, low-cost AQ monitors may empower patients to intervene on unsafe household conditions and minimize their risk of poor lung health.

Alexys Monoson, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sean Callahan, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
FCCP - Section Vice Chair

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE & LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

The World Health Organization estimates significant air pollution–attributable deaths, including 11% of lung cancer deaths, 18% of COPD deaths, and 23% of pneumonia deaths (www.who.org). Many pulmonologists recommend minimizing air pollution exposure to reduce the development and progression of lung diseases (Carlsten C, et al. Europ Respir J. 2020;55[6]: 1902056).

The Environmental Protection Agency uses air quality (AQ) monitors around the country to track ambient pollution levels. These real-time data are available to the public on AirNow.gov; however, these data do not reflect indoor air pollutants. Thus, AQ monitors may not accurately represent the total air pollution exposure to patients.

Low-cost AQ monitors available for purchase enable indoor AQ monitoring.

Unfortunately, many indoor air pollutants do not have well-established safe levels. Although several devices detect specific pollutants like volatile oxygen compounds or particulate matter, other harmful compounds may remain undetectable and unmonitored. Even if high pollutant levels are detected, most devices are not designed to alarm like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors (www.epa.gov).

Although efficacy data are limited, several laboratories, such as the Indoor Environment Lab at Berkeley, have conducted performance evaluations. In a study of 16 devices publicly available for purchase, the devices tended to underreport pollutant levels by nearly 50%. Nevertheless, most devices successfully detected the presence of pollutants (Demanega I, et al. Building and Environment. 2021;187:107415).

Regardless of these limitations, low-cost AQ monitors may empower patients to intervene on unsafe household conditions and minimize their risk of poor lung health.

Alexys Monoson, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sean Callahan, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
FCCP - Section Vice Chair

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE & LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Occupational & Environmental Health Section

The World Health Organization estimates significant air pollution–attributable deaths, including 11% of lung cancer deaths, 18% of COPD deaths, and 23% of pneumonia deaths (www.who.org). Many pulmonologists recommend minimizing air pollution exposure to reduce the development and progression of lung diseases (Carlsten C, et al. Europ Respir J. 2020;55[6]: 1902056).

The Environmental Protection Agency uses air quality (AQ) monitors around the country to track ambient pollution levels. These real-time data are available to the public on AirNow.gov; however, these data do not reflect indoor air pollutants. Thus, AQ monitors may not accurately represent the total air pollution exposure to patients.

Low-cost AQ monitors available for purchase enable indoor AQ monitoring.

Unfortunately, many indoor air pollutants do not have well-established safe levels. Although several devices detect specific pollutants like volatile oxygen compounds or particulate matter, other harmful compounds may remain undetectable and unmonitored. Even if high pollutant levels are detected, most devices are not designed to alarm like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors (www.epa.gov).

Although efficacy data are limited, several laboratories, such as the Indoor Environment Lab at Berkeley, have conducted performance evaluations. In a study of 16 devices publicly available for purchase, the devices tended to underreport pollutant levels by nearly 50%. Nevertheless, most devices successfully detected the presence of pollutants (Demanega I, et al. Building and Environment. 2021;187:107415).

Regardless of these limitations, low-cost AQ monitors may empower patients to intervene on unsafe household conditions and minimize their risk of poor lung health.

Alexys Monoson, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sean Callahan, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD
FCCP - Section Vice Chair

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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