Feature

Helen Tanner remembers stealing glimpses of her husband, Philip (“Phil”) Robinson, MBChB, PhD, associate professor at the University of Queensland (Australia), catching and rehoming huge Huntsman spiders. Robinson made the extra effort because he didn’t want to hurt them; he wasn’t a big fan of the large spider with a potential leg span of 6 inches that’s commonly found in Australia, per the Australian Museum.

Robinson also relished taking his children, Eddie, 4, and Tommy, 7, on roller coaster rides, which they enjoyed, despite the experience typically giving him motion sickness, Tanner said.

“He would do anything to make the children happy,” she said. “His children meant the world to him.”

Robinson died Jan. 3 as a result of diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma, according to his wife, who added that it was a short, 2-week-long illness.
 

A leader of global effort to understand COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described Robinson as “one of the hardest-working people I have ever known. ... [still] his deep love and dedication for his family and kids was always present.”

Robinson would wake up early, even on weekends, to lead international calls across multiple time zones, Yazdany said. “He was driven by a deep curiosity and an intense desire to generate scholarship that would help people with rheumatic diseases.”

Yazdany added that Robinson had a full research portfolio in gout and spondyloarthritis and a busy clinical practice.

She often caught glimpses of Robinson’s young children during Zoom calls. “He was also a talented baker and loved to bake with his kids, often posting pictures of his creations on social media,” Yazdany said.

A mutual colleague compiled some of Robinson’s baking successes. That includes “ ‘probably about to be locked down’ cookies” on July 17, 2021, and “Queensland lockdown cookies!!!” on July 2, 2021. Reuters reported on July 21, 2021, that Australia was witnessing an alarming increase in COVID-19 cases.

Robinson also worked his social media skills to rally support for the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, according to an article published by his colleagues in The Rheumatologist. Yazdany collaborated with him in this effort.

Launched on March 12, 2020, the Global Rheumatology Alliance’s mission is to “collect, analyze, and disseminate information about COVID-19 and rheumatology to patients, physicians, and other relevant groups to improve the care of patients with rheumatic disease.” Robinson served as chair of governance and policy for the collaborative effort.

Inspired by a conversation on Twitter by Leonard Calabrese, DO, a rheumatologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, about an outcomes registry created by gastroenterologists specific to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, Robinson launched a discussion about a similar effort for rheumatology on Twitter, they write.

Along with colleagues and within a single Zoom conference call, Yazdany and Robinson had a plan to organize the registry, Robinson’s colleagues write.

Two projects of the Global Rheumatology Alliance are a health care provider–entered registry for providers to enter data about rheumatology patients with COVID-19 infections, and their COVID-19 Vax Survey, which is available in 12 languages, including English.

Yazdany had never met Robinson before she started working with him on the Global Rheumatology Alliance. They started chatting on Twitter, then moved to Zoom conference calls, and subsequently had weeks when they talked by phone and “emailed constantly,” she said.

“As I reflect on our initial interactions, I am struck by how brilliantly we got along and trusted each other,” Yazdany told this news organization. “We both liked to think big, believed in inclusive collaborations, and were committed to helping people with rheumatic diseases during a scary and uncertain time.”

Still, Yazdany noted that she and Phil brought different strengths to their collaborations. She brought her skills related to the technical aspects of research databases, while “Phil worked his magic in mobilizing friends and colleagues from all over the world,” she said. “He served as a wonderful leader, one whom people believed in and would follow.”

The two colleagues, who spent much of their collaborations over Zoom calls, email, and Slack, while living more than 7,000 miles apart, finally met in person at ACR Convergence 2022, which took place in Philadelphia that year. “It felt like the best kind of reunion with a dear friend,” Yazdany remembered.
 

A mentor who created a platform for ‘good people to do great things’

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, marveled at Robinson’s ability to “distill things simply and cleanly, with clarity but without losing detail.” Liew, who collaborated with Robinson throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, likens the experience to “jamming with [jazz musician John] Coltrane.”

“What I think was particularly remarkable was the capacity to not only have those thoughts himself, but to facilitate others to have that springboard,” said Liew, who added that Robinson “took enormous pleasure in facilitating others’ success.”

“I think the greatest joy he drew out of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, apart from facing up to the challenge that needed to be faced, was creating a platform for good people to do great things,” said Liew, who recalled one situation where Robinson gently challenged him. Looking back now, Liew can “now see he very clearly was laying me up, giving me the best chance to shine.”

He describes Robinson as “a deep soul who loved his wife and two sons enormously” and “a whiskey aficionado.” “[Whiskey] suited his contemplative style,” Liew recalled. “Some of my fondest conversations with him were over a whiskey, either in person or virtually, pondering the ‘big issues.’”
 

A ‘friend and a colleague and so much more’

Claire Barrett, MBBS, president of the Australian Rheumatology Association, described Robinson as a “friend and a colleague and so much more. ... [He was] someone who I worked, laughed, ate, drank, danced, and had fun with,” she told this news organization. They served together as volunteers for the Australian Rheumatology Association and its Queensland branch, as well as Arthritis Queensland; they were also colleagues at Metro North Hospital and Health Service in Brisbane, Queensland.

Robinson was her “go to” for insightful comment on a variety of topics, she said. That could be advice on managing a patient with difficult gout, challenging spondyloarthritis, or the best treatment for a patient with COVID-19.

“[Phil] was a friend I could ask about anything, knowing I would not be judged,” Barrett said. “His kids and our grandkids are similar ages, so we would swap stories and photos and laugh about how cute/funny/cuddly/busy/etc. they were. My heart is broken he won’t get the chance to enjoy their future and the excitement of having Phil continuing to be such an active dad.”

Tanner, Robinson’s wife, said, “he loved everything.” That included the academic side of medicine, and working out what was wrong with his patients and helping them get better. “He was dedicated to this,” she added.

“He also loved the camaraderie of the job – all the people he met and interacted with. [Phil] loved sharing his ideas for research and also discussing complex patients with colleagues. He was driven by finding the answers to problems and doing this as part of a team of researchers/clinicians. He wasn’t interested in personal success.”

Robinson received his medical degree from Otago Medical School in Dunedin, New Zealand, according to the University of Queensland. His specialty training in general and acute care medicine and rheumatology was completed in Wellington, New Zealand, and Dunedin. Robinson also achieved a PhD in human genetics at the University of Queensland Diamantina Institute and had a postdoctoral fellowship at the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland.

Before his death, he worked at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in Herston, Queensland, and at St. Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Spring Hill in Brisbane.

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

Helen Tanner remembers stealing glimpses of her husband, Philip (“Phil”) Robinson, MBChB, PhD, associate professor at the University of Queensland (Australia), catching and rehoming huge Huntsman spiders. Robinson made the extra effort because he didn’t want to hurt them; he wasn’t a big fan of the large spider with a potential leg span of 6 inches that’s commonly found in Australia, per the Australian Museum.

Robinson also relished taking his children, Eddie, 4, and Tommy, 7, on roller coaster rides, which they enjoyed, despite the experience typically giving him motion sickness, Tanner said.

“He would do anything to make the children happy,” she said. “His children meant the world to him.”

Robinson died Jan. 3 as a result of diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma, according to his wife, who added that it was a short, 2-week-long illness.
 

A leader of global effort to understand COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described Robinson as “one of the hardest-working people I have ever known. ... [still] his deep love and dedication for his family and kids was always present.”

Robinson would wake up early, even on weekends, to lead international calls across multiple time zones, Yazdany said. “He was driven by a deep curiosity and an intense desire to generate scholarship that would help people with rheumatic diseases.”

Yazdany added that Robinson had a full research portfolio in gout and spondyloarthritis and a busy clinical practice.

She often caught glimpses of Robinson’s young children during Zoom calls. “He was also a talented baker and loved to bake with his kids, often posting pictures of his creations on social media,” Yazdany said.

A mutual colleague compiled some of Robinson’s baking successes. That includes “ ‘probably about to be locked down’ cookies” on July 17, 2021, and “Queensland lockdown cookies!!!” on July 2, 2021. Reuters reported on July 21, 2021, that Australia was witnessing an alarming increase in COVID-19 cases.

Robinson also worked his social media skills to rally support for the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, according to an article published by his colleagues in The Rheumatologist. Yazdany collaborated with him in this effort.

Launched on March 12, 2020, the Global Rheumatology Alliance’s mission is to “collect, analyze, and disseminate information about COVID-19 and rheumatology to patients, physicians, and other relevant groups to improve the care of patients with rheumatic disease.” Robinson served as chair of governance and policy for the collaborative effort.

Inspired by a conversation on Twitter by Leonard Calabrese, DO, a rheumatologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, about an outcomes registry created by gastroenterologists specific to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, Robinson launched a discussion about a similar effort for rheumatology on Twitter, they write.

Along with colleagues and within a single Zoom conference call, Yazdany and Robinson had a plan to organize the registry, Robinson’s colleagues write.

Two projects of the Global Rheumatology Alliance are a health care provider–entered registry for providers to enter data about rheumatology patients with COVID-19 infections, and their COVID-19 Vax Survey, which is available in 12 languages, including English.

Yazdany had never met Robinson before she started working with him on the Global Rheumatology Alliance. They started chatting on Twitter, then moved to Zoom conference calls, and subsequently had weeks when they talked by phone and “emailed constantly,” she said.

“As I reflect on our initial interactions, I am struck by how brilliantly we got along and trusted each other,” Yazdany told this news organization. “We both liked to think big, believed in inclusive collaborations, and were committed to helping people with rheumatic diseases during a scary and uncertain time.”

Still, Yazdany noted that she and Phil brought different strengths to their collaborations. She brought her skills related to the technical aspects of research databases, while “Phil worked his magic in mobilizing friends and colleagues from all over the world,” she said. “He served as a wonderful leader, one whom people believed in and would follow.”

The two colleagues, who spent much of their collaborations over Zoom calls, email, and Slack, while living more than 7,000 miles apart, finally met in person at ACR Convergence 2022, which took place in Philadelphia that year. “It felt like the best kind of reunion with a dear friend,” Yazdany remembered.
 

A mentor who created a platform for ‘good people to do great things’

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, marveled at Robinson’s ability to “distill things simply and cleanly, with clarity but without losing detail.” Liew, who collaborated with Robinson throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, likens the experience to “jamming with [jazz musician John] Coltrane.”

“What I think was particularly remarkable was the capacity to not only have those thoughts himself, but to facilitate others to have that springboard,” said Liew, who added that Robinson “took enormous pleasure in facilitating others’ success.”

“I think the greatest joy he drew out of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, apart from facing up to the challenge that needed to be faced, was creating a platform for good people to do great things,” said Liew, who recalled one situation where Robinson gently challenged him. Looking back now, Liew can “now see he very clearly was laying me up, giving me the best chance to shine.”

He describes Robinson as “a deep soul who loved his wife and two sons enormously” and “a whiskey aficionado.” “[Whiskey] suited his contemplative style,” Liew recalled. “Some of my fondest conversations with him were over a whiskey, either in person or virtually, pondering the ‘big issues.’”
 

A ‘friend and a colleague and so much more’

Claire Barrett, MBBS, president of the Australian Rheumatology Association, described Robinson as a “friend and a colleague and so much more. ... [He was] someone who I worked, laughed, ate, drank, danced, and had fun with,” she told this news organization. They served together as volunteers for the Australian Rheumatology Association and its Queensland branch, as well as Arthritis Queensland; they were also colleagues at Metro North Hospital and Health Service in Brisbane, Queensland.

Robinson was her “go to” for insightful comment on a variety of topics, she said. That could be advice on managing a patient with difficult gout, challenging spondyloarthritis, or the best treatment for a patient with COVID-19.

“[Phil] was a friend I could ask about anything, knowing I would not be judged,” Barrett said. “His kids and our grandkids are similar ages, so we would swap stories and photos and laugh about how cute/funny/cuddly/busy/etc. they were. My heart is broken he won’t get the chance to enjoy their future and the excitement of having Phil continuing to be such an active dad.”

Tanner, Robinson’s wife, said, “he loved everything.” That included the academic side of medicine, and working out what was wrong with his patients and helping them get better. “He was dedicated to this,” she added.

“He also loved the camaraderie of the job – all the people he met and interacted with. [Phil] loved sharing his ideas for research and also discussing complex patients with colleagues. He was driven by finding the answers to problems and doing this as part of a team of researchers/clinicians. He wasn’t interested in personal success.”

Robinson received his medical degree from Otago Medical School in Dunedin, New Zealand, according to the University of Queensland. His specialty training in general and acute care medicine and rheumatology was completed in Wellington, New Zealand, and Dunedin. Robinson also achieved a PhD in human genetics at the University of Queensland Diamantina Institute and had a postdoctoral fellowship at the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland.

Before his death, he worked at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in Herston, Queensland, and at St. Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Spring Hill in Brisbane.

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

Helen Tanner remembers stealing glimpses of her husband, Philip (“Phil”) Robinson, MBChB, PhD, associate professor at the University of Queensland (Australia), catching and rehoming huge Huntsman spiders. Robinson made the extra effort because he didn’t want to hurt them; he wasn’t a big fan of the large spider with a potential leg span of 6 inches that’s commonly found in Australia, per the Australian Museum.

Robinson also relished taking his children, Eddie, 4, and Tommy, 7, on roller coaster rides, which they enjoyed, despite the experience typically giving him motion sickness, Tanner said.

“He would do anything to make the children happy,” she said. “His children meant the world to him.”

Robinson died Jan. 3 as a result of diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma, according to his wife, who added that it was a short, 2-week-long illness.
 

A leader of global effort to understand COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described Robinson as “one of the hardest-working people I have ever known. ... [still] his deep love and dedication for his family and kids was always present.”

Robinson would wake up early, even on weekends, to lead international calls across multiple time zones, Yazdany said. “He was driven by a deep curiosity and an intense desire to generate scholarship that would help people with rheumatic diseases.”

Yazdany added that Robinson had a full research portfolio in gout and spondyloarthritis and a busy clinical practice.

She often caught glimpses of Robinson’s young children during Zoom calls. “He was also a talented baker and loved to bake with his kids, often posting pictures of his creations on social media,” Yazdany said.

A mutual colleague compiled some of Robinson’s baking successes. That includes “ ‘probably about to be locked down’ cookies” on July 17, 2021, and “Queensland lockdown cookies!!!” on July 2, 2021. Reuters reported on July 21, 2021, that Australia was witnessing an alarming increase in COVID-19 cases.

Robinson also worked his social media skills to rally support for the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, according to an article published by his colleagues in The Rheumatologist. Yazdany collaborated with him in this effort.

Launched on March 12, 2020, the Global Rheumatology Alliance’s mission is to “collect, analyze, and disseminate information about COVID-19 and rheumatology to patients, physicians, and other relevant groups to improve the care of patients with rheumatic disease.” Robinson served as chair of governance and policy for the collaborative effort.

Inspired by a conversation on Twitter by Leonard Calabrese, DO, a rheumatologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, about an outcomes registry created by gastroenterologists specific to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, Robinson launched a discussion about a similar effort for rheumatology on Twitter, they write.

Along with colleagues and within a single Zoom conference call, Yazdany and Robinson had a plan to organize the registry, Robinson’s colleagues write.

Two projects of the Global Rheumatology Alliance are a health care provider–entered registry for providers to enter data about rheumatology patients with COVID-19 infections, and their COVID-19 Vax Survey, which is available in 12 languages, including English.

Yazdany had never met Robinson before she started working with him on the Global Rheumatology Alliance. They started chatting on Twitter, then moved to Zoom conference calls, and subsequently had weeks when they talked by phone and “emailed constantly,” she said.

“As I reflect on our initial interactions, I am struck by how brilliantly we got along and trusted each other,” Yazdany told this news organization. “We both liked to think big, believed in inclusive collaborations, and were committed to helping people with rheumatic diseases during a scary and uncertain time.”

Still, Yazdany noted that she and Phil brought different strengths to their collaborations. She brought her skills related to the technical aspects of research databases, while “Phil worked his magic in mobilizing friends and colleagues from all over the world,” she said. “He served as a wonderful leader, one whom people believed in and would follow.”

The two colleagues, who spent much of their collaborations over Zoom calls, email, and Slack, while living more than 7,000 miles apart, finally met in person at ACR Convergence 2022, which took place in Philadelphia that year. “It felt like the best kind of reunion with a dear friend,” Yazdany remembered.
 

A mentor who created a platform for ‘good people to do great things’

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, marveled at Robinson’s ability to “distill things simply and cleanly, with clarity but without losing detail.” Liew, who collaborated with Robinson throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, likens the experience to “jamming with [jazz musician John] Coltrane.”

“What I think was particularly remarkable was the capacity to not only have those thoughts himself, but to facilitate others to have that springboard,” said Liew, who added that Robinson “took enormous pleasure in facilitating others’ success.”

“I think the greatest joy he drew out of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, apart from facing up to the challenge that needed to be faced, was creating a platform for good people to do great things,” said Liew, who recalled one situation where Robinson gently challenged him. Looking back now, Liew can “now see he very clearly was laying me up, giving me the best chance to shine.”

He describes Robinson as “a deep soul who loved his wife and two sons enormously” and “a whiskey aficionado.” “[Whiskey] suited his contemplative style,” Liew recalled. “Some of my fondest conversations with him were over a whiskey, either in person or virtually, pondering the ‘big issues.’”
 

A ‘friend and a colleague and so much more’

Claire Barrett, MBBS, president of the Australian Rheumatology Association, described Robinson as a “friend and a colleague and so much more. ... [He was] someone who I worked, laughed, ate, drank, danced, and had fun with,” she told this news organization. They served together as volunteers for the Australian Rheumatology Association and its Queensland branch, as well as Arthritis Queensland; they were also colleagues at Metro North Hospital and Health Service in Brisbane, Queensland.

Robinson was her “go to” for insightful comment on a variety of topics, she said. That could be advice on managing a patient with difficult gout, challenging spondyloarthritis, or the best treatment for a patient with COVID-19.

“[Phil] was a friend I could ask about anything, knowing I would not be judged,” Barrett said. “His kids and our grandkids are similar ages, so we would swap stories and photos and laugh about how cute/funny/cuddly/busy/etc. they were. My heart is broken he won’t get the chance to enjoy their future and the excitement of having Phil continuing to be such an active dad.”

Tanner, Robinson’s wife, said, “he loved everything.” That included the academic side of medicine, and working out what was wrong with his patients and helping them get better. “He was dedicated to this,” she added.

“He also loved the camaraderie of the job – all the people he met and interacted with. [Phil] loved sharing his ideas for research and also discussing complex patients with colleagues. He was driven by finding the answers to problems and doing this as part of a team of researchers/clinicians. He wasn’t interested in personal success.”

Robinson received his medical degree from Otago Medical School in Dunedin, New Zealand, according to the University of Queensland. His specialty training in general and acute care medicine and rheumatology was completed in Wellington, New Zealand, and Dunedin. Robinson also achieved a PhD in human genetics at the University of Queensland Diamantina Institute and had a postdoctoral fellowship at the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland.

Before his death, he worked at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in Herston, Queensland, and at St. Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Spring Hill in Brisbane.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

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

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

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

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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