MDedge Psychiatry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes that affect everyone

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

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

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

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

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

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

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

Changes that affect uninsured people

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

Changes that affect health care providers

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

What the experts are saying 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes that affect everyone

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

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

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

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

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

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

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

Changes that affect uninsured people

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

Changes that affect health care providers

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

What the experts are saying 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes that affect everyone

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

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

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

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

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

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

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

Changes that affect uninsured people

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

Changes that affect health care providers

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

What the experts are saying 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

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

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

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

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

No definitive answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

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

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

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

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

No definitive answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

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

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

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

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

No definitive answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps?

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

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

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

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

Small Pharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps?

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

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

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

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

Small Pharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps?

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

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

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

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

Small Pharma

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

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with autism are more likely to face diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart disease than those without the neurologic condition, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Researchers also found that children with autism are especially likely to develop diabetes compared with their peers, and are at greater risk of hypertension, too.

While the link between autism and risk for obesity and gastrointestinal ailments is well-established, the new findings suggest that clinicians who care for these patients – particularly children – should focus on cardiometabolic health more broadly.

“Clinicians who are treating kids with autism need to pay more attention to this,” said Chanaka N. Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, MPhil, of the department of neurology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, in Lubbock, and a coauthor of the new study.

A pediatrician may prescribe an atypical antipsychotic medication such as risperidone to regulate the behavior of an autistic child, Dr. Kahathuduwa said, which may increase their cholesterol levels. Although this or similar drugs may be necessary in some cases, Dr. Kahathuduwa advised that clinicians explore other treatment options first.
 

Mining data from previously published studies

For the new analysis, Dr. Kahathuduwa and his colleagues pooled the results of 34 previously published studies, which included medical records of more than 276,000 people with autism and close to 8 million people without the condition.

Study participants were an average age of 31 years, and 47% were female. Some studies reported age ranges that enabled the researchers to differentiate between children and adults.

People with autism were 64% more likely to develop type 1 diabetes, 146% more likely to experience type 2 diabetes, and 46% more likely to have heart disease, overall, the study found. Children with autism were almost twice as likely as their peers to develop diabetes (184%) and high blood pressure (154%).

The study found associations, not causation, and does not include detailed data about medication prescribing patterns. While it would be ideal to understand why autism is linked to cardiometabolic risk, to address the link most effectively, Dr. Kahathuduwa said the causes likely are multifactorial. Medication history and genetics each play a role in a way that is hard to untangle. Even so, Dr. Kahathuduwa said he hoped the findings prompt clinicians to reevaluate how they treat their patients with autism.

“This may be an eye opener,” he said.

An editorial accompanying the study noted that people with autism may die up to 30 years earlier than people without autism, in part because of the physical health problems surfaced in the new research. They also are more likely than others to attempt suicide.

Elizabeth M. Weir, PhD, of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge (England) and author of the editorial, argued that current health delivery models often fail autistic people by not taking their needs into account.

Dr. Weir told this news organization that making adjustments such as dimming the lights for a light-sensitive patient or allowing people with autism to bring an advocate to appointments could build rapport.

“I diagnose autism pretty much every day and I know families get so overwhelmed with all the recommendations that we give,” said Sonia Monteiro, MD, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Still, Dr. Monteiro said clinicians should help parents of children with autism address the potential long-term cardiovascular risks – but to do so by layering in the information rather than merely adding more bullet points to an already long presentation.

“We know this information now, but finding a way to share that with families without overwhelming them even more, I think is challenging,” Dr. Monteiro said. “But it’s not something we can ignore.”

Dr. Kahathuduwa, Dr. Weir, and Dr. Monteiro report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with autism are more likely to face diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart disease than those without the neurologic condition, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Researchers also found that children with autism are especially likely to develop diabetes compared with their peers, and are at greater risk of hypertension, too.

While the link between autism and risk for obesity and gastrointestinal ailments is well-established, the new findings suggest that clinicians who care for these patients – particularly children – should focus on cardiometabolic health more broadly.

“Clinicians who are treating kids with autism need to pay more attention to this,” said Chanaka N. Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, MPhil, of the department of neurology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, in Lubbock, and a coauthor of the new study.

A pediatrician may prescribe an atypical antipsychotic medication such as risperidone to regulate the behavior of an autistic child, Dr. Kahathuduwa said, which may increase their cholesterol levels. Although this or similar drugs may be necessary in some cases, Dr. Kahathuduwa advised that clinicians explore other treatment options first.
 

Mining data from previously published studies

For the new analysis, Dr. Kahathuduwa and his colleagues pooled the results of 34 previously published studies, which included medical records of more than 276,000 people with autism and close to 8 million people without the condition.

Study participants were an average age of 31 years, and 47% were female. Some studies reported age ranges that enabled the researchers to differentiate between children and adults.

People with autism were 64% more likely to develop type 1 diabetes, 146% more likely to experience type 2 diabetes, and 46% more likely to have heart disease, overall, the study found. Children with autism were almost twice as likely as their peers to develop diabetes (184%) and high blood pressure (154%).

The study found associations, not causation, and does not include detailed data about medication prescribing patterns. While it would be ideal to understand why autism is linked to cardiometabolic risk, to address the link most effectively, Dr. Kahathuduwa said the causes likely are multifactorial. Medication history and genetics each play a role in a way that is hard to untangle. Even so, Dr. Kahathuduwa said he hoped the findings prompt clinicians to reevaluate how they treat their patients with autism.

“This may be an eye opener,” he said.

An editorial accompanying the study noted that people with autism may die up to 30 years earlier than people without autism, in part because of the physical health problems surfaced in the new research. They also are more likely than others to attempt suicide.

Elizabeth M. Weir, PhD, of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge (England) and author of the editorial, argued that current health delivery models often fail autistic people by not taking their needs into account.

Dr. Weir told this news organization that making adjustments such as dimming the lights for a light-sensitive patient or allowing people with autism to bring an advocate to appointments could build rapport.

“I diagnose autism pretty much every day and I know families get so overwhelmed with all the recommendations that we give,” said Sonia Monteiro, MD, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Still, Dr. Monteiro said clinicians should help parents of children with autism address the potential long-term cardiovascular risks – but to do so by layering in the information rather than merely adding more bullet points to an already long presentation.

“We know this information now, but finding a way to share that with families without overwhelming them even more, I think is challenging,” Dr. Monteiro said. “But it’s not something we can ignore.”

Dr. Kahathuduwa, Dr. Weir, and Dr. Monteiro report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with autism are more likely to face diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart disease than those without the neurologic condition, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Researchers also found that children with autism are especially likely to develop diabetes compared with their peers, and are at greater risk of hypertension, too.

While the link between autism and risk for obesity and gastrointestinal ailments is well-established, the new findings suggest that clinicians who care for these patients – particularly children – should focus on cardiometabolic health more broadly.

“Clinicians who are treating kids with autism need to pay more attention to this,” said Chanaka N. Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, MPhil, of the department of neurology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, in Lubbock, and a coauthor of the new study.

A pediatrician may prescribe an atypical antipsychotic medication such as risperidone to regulate the behavior of an autistic child, Dr. Kahathuduwa said, which may increase their cholesterol levels. Although this or similar drugs may be necessary in some cases, Dr. Kahathuduwa advised that clinicians explore other treatment options first.
 

Mining data from previously published studies

For the new analysis, Dr. Kahathuduwa and his colleagues pooled the results of 34 previously published studies, which included medical records of more than 276,000 people with autism and close to 8 million people without the condition.

Study participants were an average age of 31 years, and 47% were female. Some studies reported age ranges that enabled the researchers to differentiate between children and adults.

People with autism were 64% more likely to develop type 1 diabetes, 146% more likely to experience type 2 diabetes, and 46% more likely to have heart disease, overall, the study found. Children with autism were almost twice as likely as their peers to develop diabetes (184%) and high blood pressure (154%).

The study found associations, not causation, and does not include detailed data about medication prescribing patterns. While it would be ideal to understand why autism is linked to cardiometabolic risk, to address the link most effectively, Dr. Kahathuduwa said the causes likely are multifactorial. Medication history and genetics each play a role in a way that is hard to untangle. Even so, Dr. Kahathuduwa said he hoped the findings prompt clinicians to reevaluate how they treat their patients with autism.

“This may be an eye opener,” he said.

An editorial accompanying the study noted that people with autism may die up to 30 years earlier than people without autism, in part because of the physical health problems surfaced in the new research. They also are more likely than others to attempt suicide.

Elizabeth M. Weir, PhD, of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge (England) and author of the editorial, argued that current health delivery models often fail autistic people by not taking their needs into account.

Dr. Weir told this news organization that making adjustments such as dimming the lights for a light-sensitive patient or allowing people with autism to bring an advocate to appointments could build rapport.

“I diagnose autism pretty much every day and I know families get so overwhelmed with all the recommendations that we give,” said Sonia Monteiro, MD, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Still, Dr. Monteiro said clinicians should help parents of children with autism address the potential long-term cardiovascular risks – but to do so by layering in the information rather than merely adding more bullet points to an already long presentation.

“We know this information now, but finding a way to share that with families without overwhelming them even more, I think is challenging,” Dr. Monteiro said. “But it’s not something we can ignore.”

Dr. Kahathuduwa, Dr. Weir, and Dr. Monteiro report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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