Feature

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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