Feature

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.
 

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.
 

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.