User login
Obstructive sleep apnea linked to early cognitive decline
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FRONTIERS IN SLEEP
Optimal time period for weight loss drugs: Debate continues
After bariatric surgery in 2014, Kristal Hartman still struggled to manage her weight long term. It took her over a year to lose 100 pounds, a loss she initially maintained, but then gradually her body mass index (BMI) started creeping up again.
“The body kind of has a set point, and you have to constantly trick it because it is going to start to gain weight again,” Ms. Hartman, who is on the national board of directors for the Obesity Action Coalition, said in an interview.
So, 2.5 years after her surgery, Ms. Hartman began weekly subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, a medication that is now almost infamous because of its popularity among celebrities and social media influencers.
Branded as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes and Wegovy for obesity, both contain semaglutide but in slightly different doses. The popularity of the medication has led to shortages for those living with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity. And other medications are waiting in the wings that work on GLP-1 and other hormones that regulate appetite, such as the twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro), another weekly injection, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2022 for type 2 diabetes and awaiting approval for obesity.
Ms. Hartman said taking semaglutide helped her not only lose weight but also “curb [her] obsessive thoughts over food.” To maintain a BMI within the healthy range, as well as taking the GLP-1 agonist, Ms. Hartman relies on other strategies, including exercise, and mental health support.
“Physicians really need to be open to these FDA-approved medications as one of many tools in the toolbox for patients with obesity. It’s just like any other chronic disease state, when they are thinking of using these, they need to think about long-term use ... in patients who have obesity, not just [among those people] who just want to lose 5-10 pounds. That’s not what these drugs are designed for. They are for people who are actually living with the chronic disease of obesity every day of their lives,” she emphasized.
On average, patients lose 25%-40% of their total body weight following bariatric surgery, said Teresa LeMasters, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. However, there typically is a “small” weight regain after surgery.
“For most patients, it is a small 5-10 pounds, but for some others, it can be significant,” said Dr. LeMasters, a bariatric surgeon at UnityPoint Clinic, Des Moines, Iowa.
“We do still see some patients– anywhere from 10% to 30% – who will have some [significant] weight regain, and so then we will look at that,” she noted. In those cases, the disease of obesity “is definitely still present.”
Medications can counter weight regain after surgery
For patients who don’t reach their weight loss goals after bariatric surgery, Dr. LeMasters said it’s appropriate to consider adding an anti-obesity medication. The newer GLP-1 agonists can lead to a loss of around 15% of body weight in some patients.
or even just to optimize their initial response to surgery if they are starting at a very, very severe point of disease,” she explained.
She noted, however, that some patients shouldn’t be prescribed GLP-1 agonists, including those with a history of thyroid cancer or pancreatitis.
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector of the center for weight management and wellness and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that the physiology behind bariatric surgery and that of the newer obesity medications is somewhat aligned.
“In order to reduce ... body weight permanently you need adjustments. We learned that you need the adjustments of the hormones [that affect appetite, such as GLP-1], and that’s why bariatric surgery works because ... [it] provides the most durable and the most effective treatment for obesity ... because [with surgery] you are adjusting the secretion and timing of many of the hormones that regulate body weight,” she explained.
So, when people are taking GLP-1 agonists for obesity, with or without surgery, these medications “are meant and were approved by the FDA to be taken indefinitely. They are not [for the] short term,” Dr. Apovian noted.
Benjamin O’Donnell, MD, an associate professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, agreed that the newer anti-obesity medications can be very effective; however, he expressed uncertainty about prescribing these medications for years and years.
“If somebody has obesity, they need medicine to help them manage appetite and maintain a lower, healthier weight. It would make sense that they would just stay on the medicine,” he noted.
But he qualified: “I have a hard time committing to saying that someone should take this medication for the rest of their life. Part of my hesitation is that the medications are expensive, so we’ve had a hard time with people staying on them, mostly because of insurance formulary changes.”
Why stop the medications? Side effects and lack of insurance coverage
Many people have to discontinue these newer medications for that exact reason.
When Ms. Hartman’s insurance coverage lapsed, she had to go without semaglutide for a while.
“At that time, I absolutely gained weight back up into an abnormal BMI range,” Ms. Hartman said. When she was able to resume the medication, she lost weight again and her BMI returned to normal range.
These medications currently cost around $1,400 per month in the United States, unless patients can access initiatives such as company coupons. Some insurers, including state-subsidized Medicare and Medicaid, don’t cover the new medications.
Dr. O’Donnell said, “More accessibility for more people would help in the big picture.”
Other patients stop taking GLP-1 agonists because they experience side effects, such as nausea.
“Gastrointestinal complaints ... are the number one reason for people to come off the medication,” said Disha Narang, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest (Ill.) Hospital.
“It is an elective therapy, so it is not mandatory that someone take it. So if they are not feeling well or they are sick, then that’s a major reason for coming off of it,” she said.
Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology, agreed.
Patients are unlikely to stay on these medications if they feel nauseous or experience vomiting, he said. Although he noted there are options to try to counter this, such as starting patients on a very low dose of the drug and up-titrating slowly. This method requires good coordination between the patient and physician.
Goutham Rao, MD, a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and head of the weight-loss initiative Fitter Me at University Hospitals, both in Cleveland, said that prior to prescribing GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, he sets four basic, nonnegotiable goals for patients: “to have breakfast within 30 minutes of getting up, to drink just water, no food or drink after 7:00 p.m. except for water, and 30 minutes of continuous exercise per day, which is typically, for older clientele, walking.”
This, he said, can help establish good habits because if “patients are not engaged psychologically in weight loss ... they expect the medication to do [all] the work.”
Most regain weight after stopping obesity medications
As Ms. Hartman’s story illustrates, discontinuing the medications often leads to weight regain.
“Without the medicine, there are a variety of things that will happen. Appetite will tend to increase, and so [patients] will gradually tend to eat more over time,” Dr. Bessesen noted.
“So it may take a long time for the weight regain to happen, but in every study where an obesity medicine has been used, and then it is stopped, the weight goes back to where it was on lifestyle alone,” he added.
In the STEP 1 trial, almost 2,000 patients who were either overweight or living with obesity were randomized 2:1 to semaglutide, titrated up to 2.4 mg each week by week 16, or placebo in addition to lifestyle modification. After 68 weeks, those in the semaglutide group had a mean weight loss of 14.9%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group.
Patients were also followed in a 1-year extension of the trial, published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
Within 1 year of stopping treatment, participants regained two thirds of the weight they had initially lost.
Hence, Dr. Bessesen stressed that a total rethink of how obesity is approached is needed among most physicians.
“I think in the future treating obesity with medications should be like treating hypertension and diabetes, something most primary care doctors are comfortable doing, but that’s going to take a little work and practice on the part of clinicians to really have a comfortable conversation about risks, and benefits, with patients,” he said.
“I would encourage primary care doctors to learn more about the treatment of obesity, and learn more about bias and stigma, and think about how they can deliver care that is compassionate and competent,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After bariatric surgery in 2014, Kristal Hartman still struggled to manage her weight long term. It took her over a year to lose 100 pounds, a loss she initially maintained, but then gradually her body mass index (BMI) started creeping up again.
“The body kind of has a set point, and you have to constantly trick it because it is going to start to gain weight again,” Ms. Hartman, who is on the national board of directors for the Obesity Action Coalition, said in an interview.
So, 2.5 years after her surgery, Ms. Hartman began weekly subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, a medication that is now almost infamous because of its popularity among celebrities and social media influencers.
Branded as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes and Wegovy for obesity, both contain semaglutide but in slightly different doses. The popularity of the medication has led to shortages for those living with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity. And other medications are waiting in the wings that work on GLP-1 and other hormones that regulate appetite, such as the twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro), another weekly injection, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2022 for type 2 diabetes and awaiting approval for obesity.
Ms. Hartman said taking semaglutide helped her not only lose weight but also “curb [her] obsessive thoughts over food.” To maintain a BMI within the healthy range, as well as taking the GLP-1 agonist, Ms. Hartman relies on other strategies, including exercise, and mental health support.
“Physicians really need to be open to these FDA-approved medications as one of many tools in the toolbox for patients with obesity. It’s just like any other chronic disease state, when they are thinking of using these, they need to think about long-term use ... in patients who have obesity, not just [among those people] who just want to lose 5-10 pounds. That’s not what these drugs are designed for. They are for people who are actually living with the chronic disease of obesity every day of their lives,” she emphasized.
On average, patients lose 25%-40% of their total body weight following bariatric surgery, said Teresa LeMasters, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. However, there typically is a “small” weight regain after surgery.
“For most patients, it is a small 5-10 pounds, but for some others, it can be significant,” said Dr. LeMasters, a bariatric surgeon at UnityPoint Clinic, Des Moines, Iowa.
“We do still see some patients– anywhere from 10% to 30% – who will have some [significant] weight regain, and so then we will look at that,” she noted. In those cases, the disease of obesity “is definitely still present.”
Medications can counter weight regain after surgery
For patients who don’t reach their weight loss goals after bariatric surgery, Dr. LeMasters said it’s appropriate to consider adding an anti-obesity medication. The newer GLP-1 agonists can lead to a loss of around 15% of body weight in some patients.
or even just to optimize their initial response to surgery if they are starting at a very, very severe point of disease,” she explained.
She noted, however, that some patients shouldn’t be prescribed GLP-1 agonists, including those with a history of thyroid cancer or pancreatitis.
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector of the center for weight management and wellness and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that the physiology behind bariatric surgery and that of the newer obesity medications is somewhat aligned.
“In order to reduce ... body weight permanently you need adjustments. We learned that you need the adjustments of the hormones [that affect appetite, such as GLP-1], and that’s why bariatric surgery works because ... [it] provides the most durable and the most effective treatment for obesity ... because [with surgery] you are adjusting the secretion and timing of many of the hormones that regulate body weight,” she explained.
So, when people are taking GLP-1 agonists for obesity, with or without surgery, these medications “are meant and were approved by the FDA to be taken indefinitely. They are not [for the] short term,” Dr. Apovian noted.
Benjamin O’Donnell, MD, an associate professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, agreed that the newer anti-obesity medications can be very effective; however, he expressed uncertainty about prescribing these medications for years and years.
“If somebody has obesity, they need medicine to help them manage appetite and maintain a lower, healthier weight. It would make sense that they would just stay on the medicine,” he noted.
But he qualified: “I have a hard time committing to saying that someone should take this medication for the rest of their life. Part of my hesitation is that the medications are expensive, so we’ve had a hard time with people staying on them, mostly because of insurance formulary changes.”
Why stop the medications? Side effects and lack of insurance coverage
Many people have to discontinue these newer medications for that exact reason.
When Ms. Hartman’s insurance coverage lapsed, she had to go without semaglutide for a while.
“At that time, I absolutely gained weight back up into an abnormal BMI range,” Ms. Hartman said. When she was able to resume the medication, she lost weight again and her BMI returned to normal range.
These medications currently cost around $1,400 per month in the United States, unless patients can access initiatives such as company coupons. Some insurers, including state-subsidized Medicare and Medicaid, don’t cover the new medications.
Dr. O’Donnell said, “More accessibility for more people would help in the big picture.”
Other patients stop taking GLP-1 agonists because they experience side effects, such as nausea.
“Gastrointestinal complaints ... are the number one reason for people to come off the medication,” said Disha Narang, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest (Ill.) Hospital.
“It is an elective therapy, so it is not mandatory that someone take it. So if they are not feeling well or they are sick, then that’s a major reason for coming off of it,” she said.
Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology, agreed.
Patients are unlikely to stay on these medications if they feel nauseous or experience vomiting, he said. Although he noted there are options to try to counter this, such as starting patients on a very low dose of the drug and up-titrating slowly. This method requires good coordination between the patient and physician.
Goutham Rao, MD, a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and head of the weight-loss initiative Fitter Me at University Hospitals, both in Cleveland, said that prior to prescribing GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, he sets four basic, nonnegotiable goals for patients: “to have breakfast within 30 minutes of getting up, to drink just water, no food or drink after 7:00 p.m. except for water, and 30 minutes of continuous exercise per day, which is typically, for older clientele, walking.”
This, he said, can help establish good habits because if “patients are not engaged psychologically in weight loss ... they expect the medication to do [all] the work.”
Most regain weight after stopping obesity medications
As Ms. Hartman’s story illustrates, discontinuing the medications often leads to weight regain.
“Without the medicine, there are a variety of things that will happen. Appetite will tend to increase, and so [patients] will gradually tend to eat more over time,” Dr. Bessesen noted.
“So it may take a long time for the weight regain to happen, but in every study where an obesity medicine has been used, and then it is stopped, the weight goes back to where it was on lifestyle alone,” he added.
In the STEP 1 trial, almost 2,000 patients who were either overweight or living with obesity were randomized 2:1 to semaglutide, titrated up to 2.4 mg each week by week 16, or placebo in addition to lifestyle modification. After 68 weeks, those in the semaglutide group had a mean weight loss of 14.9%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group.
Patients were also followed in a 1-year extension of the trial, published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
Within 1 year of stopping treatment, participants regained two thirds of the weight they had initially lost.
Hence, Dr. Bessesen stressed that a total rethink of how obesity is approached is needed among most physicians.
“I think in the future treating obesity with medications should be like treating hypertension and diabetes, something most primary care doctors are comfortable doing, but that’s going to take a little work and practice on the part of clinicians to really have a comfortable conversation about risks, and benefits, with patients,” he said.
“I would encourage primary care doctors to learn more about the treatment of obesity, and learn more about bias and stigma, and think about how they can deliver care that is compassionate and competent,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After bariatric surgery in 2014, Kristal Hartman still struggled to manage her weight long term. It took her over a year to lose 100 pounds, a loss she initially maintained, but then gradually her body mass index (BMI) started creeping up again.
“The body kind of has a set point, and you have to constantly trick it because it is going to start to gain weight again,” Ms. Hartman, who is on the national board of directors for the Obesity Action Coalition, said in an interview.
So, 2.5 years after her surgery, Ms. Hartman began weekly subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, a medication that is now almost infamous because of its popularity among celebrities and social media influencers.
Branded as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes and Wegovy for obesity, both contain semaglutide but in slightly different doses. The popularity of the medication has led to shortages for those living with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity. And other medications are waiting in the wings that work on GLP-1 and other hormones that regulate appetite, such as the twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro), another weekly injection, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2022 for type 2 diabetes and awaiting approval for obesity.
Ms. Hartman said taking semaglutide helped her not only lose weight but also “curb [her] obsessive thoughts over food.” To maintain a BMI within the healthy range, as well as taking the GLP-1 agonist, Ms. Hartman relies on other strategies, including exercise, and mental health support.
“Physicians really need to be open to these FDA-approved medications as one of many tools in the toolbox for patients with obesity. It’s just like any other chronic disease state, when they are thinking of using these, they need to think about long-term use ... in patients who have obesity, not just [among those people] who just want to lose 5-10 pounds. That’s not what these drugs are designed for. They are for people who are actually living with the chronic disease of obesity every day of their lives,” she emphasized.
On average, patients lose 25%-40% of their total body weight following bariatric surgery, said Teresa LeMasters, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. However, there typically is a “small” weight regain after surgery.
“For most patients, it is a small 5-10 pounds, but for some others, it can be significant,” said Dr. LeMasters, a bariatric surgeon at UnityPoint Clinic, Des Moines, Iowa.
“We do still see some patients– anywhere from 10% to 30% – who will have some [significant] weight regain, and so then we will look at that,” she noted. In those cases, the disease of obesity “is definitely still present.”
Medications can counter weight regain after surgery
For patients who don’t reach their weight loss goals after bariatric surgery, Dr. LeMasters said it’s appropriate to consider adding an anti-obesity medication. The newer GLP-1 agonists can lead to a loss of around 15% of body weight in some patients.
or even just to optimize their initial response to surgery if they are starting at a very, very severe point of disease,” she explained.
She noted, however, that some patients shouldn’t be prescribed GLP-1 agonists, including those with a history of thyroid cancer or pancreatitis.
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector of the center for weight management and wellness and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that the physiology behind bariatric surgery and that of the newer obesity medications is somewhat aligned.
“In order to reduce ... body weight permanently you need adjustments. We learned that you need the adjustments of the hormones [that affect appetite, such as GLP-1], and that’s why bariatric surgery works because ... [it] provides the most durable and the most effective treatment for obesity ... because [with surgery] you are adjusting the secretion and timing of many of the hormones that regulate body weight,” she explained.
So, when people are taking GLP-1 agonists for obesity, with or without surgery, these medications “are meant and were approved by the FDA to be taken indefinitely. They are not [for the] short term,” Dr. Apovian noted.
Benjamin O’Donnell, MD, an associate professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, agreed that the newer anti-obesity medications can be very effective; however, he expressed uncertainty about prescribing these medications for years and years.
“If somebody has obesity, they need medicine to help them manage appetite and maintain a lower, healthier weight. It would make sense that they would just stay on the medicine,” he noted.
But he qualified: “I have a hard time committing to saying that someone should take this medication for the rest of their life. Part of my hesitation is that the medications are expensive, so we’ve had a hard time with people staying on them, mostly because of insurance formulary changes.”
Why stop the medications? Side effects and lack of insurance coverage
Many people have to discontinue these newer medications for that exact reason.
When Ms. Hartman’s insurance coverage lapsed, she had to go without semaglutide for a while.
“At that time, I absolutely gained weight back up into an abnormal BMI range,” Ms. Hartman said. When she was able to resume the medication, she lost weight again and her BMI returned to normal range.
These medications currently cost around $1,400 per month in the United States, unless patients can access initiatives such as company coupons. Some insurers, including state-subsidized Medicare and Medicaid, don’t cover the new medications.
Dr. O’Donnell said, “More accessibility for more people would help in the big picture.”
Other patients stop taking GLP-1 agonists because they experience side effects, such as nausea.
“Gastrointestinal complaints ... are the number one reason for people to come off the medication,” said Disha Narang, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest (Ill.) Hospital.
“It is an elective therapy, so it is not mandatory that someone take it. So if they are not feeling well or they are sick, then that’s a major reason for coming off of it,” she said.
Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology, agreed.
Patients are unlikely to stay on these medications if they feel nauseous or experience vomiting, he said. Although he noted there are options to try to counter this, such as starting patients on a very low dose of the drug and up-titrating slowly. This method requires good coordination between the patient and physician.
Goutham Rao, MD, a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and head of the weight-loss initiative Fitter Me at University Hospitals, both in Cleveland, said that prior to prescribing GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, he sets four basic, nonnegotiable goals for patients: “to have breakfast within 30 minutes of getting up, to drink just water, no food or drink after 7:00 p.m. except for water, and 30 minutes of continuous exercise per day, which is typically, for older clientele, walking.”
This, he said, can help establish good habits because if “patients are not engaged psychologically in weight loss ... they expect the medication to do [all] the work.”
Most regain weight after stopping obesity medications
As Ms. Hartman’s story illustrates, discontinuing the medications often leads to weight regain.
“Without the medicine, there are a variety of things that will happen. Appetite will tend to increase, and so [patients] will gradually tend to eat more over time,” Dr. Bessesen noted.
“So it may take a long time for the weight regain to happen, but in every study where an obesity medicine has been used, and then it is stopped, the weight goes back to where it was on lifestyle alone,” he added.
In the STEP 1 trial, almost 2,000 patients who were either overweight or living with obesity were randomized 2:1 to semaglutide, titrated up to 2.4 mg each week by week 16, or placebo in addition to lifestyle modification. After 68 weeks, those in the semaglutide group had a mean weight loss of 14.9%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group.
Patients were also followed in a 1-year extension of the trial, published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
Within 1 year of stopping treatment, participants regained two thirds of the weight they had initially lost.
Hence, Dr. Bessesen stressed that a total rethink of how obesity is approached is needed among most physicians.
“I think in the future treating obesity with medications should be like treating hypertension and diabetes, something most primary care doctors are comfortable doing, but that’s going to take a little work and practice on the part of clinicians to really have a comfortable conversation about risks, and benefits, with patients,” he said.
“I would encourage primary care doctors to learn more about the treatment of obesity, and learn more about bias and stigma, and think about how they can deliver care that is compassionate and competent,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians may retire en masse soon. What does that mean for medicine?
The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.
“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”
To Mr. Dill,
“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”
And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.
“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement
Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.
“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”
These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.
“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
What this means for patients
The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.
The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.
The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.
Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.
Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
What can we do about mass retirement?
The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.
Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.
Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.
“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”
That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.
“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”
And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.
“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”
“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.
“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.
“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.
“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”
To Mr. Dill,
“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”
And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.
“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement
Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.
“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”
These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.
“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
What this means for patients
The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.
The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.
The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.
Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.
Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
What can we do about mass retirement?
The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.
Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.
Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.
“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”
That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.
“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”
And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.
“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”
“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.
“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.
“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.
“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”
To Mr. Dill,
“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”
And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.
“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement
Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.
“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”
These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.
“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
What this means for patients
The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.
The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.
The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.
Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.
Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
What can we do about mass retirement?
The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.
Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.
Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.
“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”
That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.
“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”
And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.
“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”
“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.
“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.
“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician compensation continues to climb amid postpandemic change
In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.
Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.
“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.
Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”
The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.
Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.
The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift
Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.
Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.
For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.
“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”
Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.
“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.
“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”
If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down
In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.
More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.
Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”
According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.
The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.
“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.
“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.
Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.
“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.
Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”
The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.
Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.
The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift
Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.
Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.
For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.
“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”
Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.
“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.
“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”
If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down
In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.
More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.
Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”
According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.
The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.
“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.
“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.
Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.
“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.
Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”
The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.
Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.
The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift
Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.
Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.
For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.
“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”
Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.
“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.
“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”
If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down
In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.
More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.
Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”
According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.
The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.
“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.
“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Napping and AFib risk: The long and the short of it
Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.
“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).
Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.
Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.
Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.
The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).
The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).
Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.
The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
Sleep habits may serve as red flag
“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.
Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.
Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.
For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.
Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.
The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.
“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).
Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.
Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.
Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.
The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).
The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).
Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.
The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
Sleep habits may serve as red flag
“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.
Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.
Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.
For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.
Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.
The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.
“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).
Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.
Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.
Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.
The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).
The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).
Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.
The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
Sleep habits may serve as red flag
“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.
Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.
Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.
For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.
Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.
The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ESC PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY 2023
Medicare expands CGM coverage to more with type 2 diabetes
Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”
The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).
Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.
The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.
Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”
According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.
On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”
The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).
Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.
The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.
Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”
According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.
On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”
The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).
Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.
The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.
Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”
According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.
On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Forgotten but not gone: EVALI epidemic continues
Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).
For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.
But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.
More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.
“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”
In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.
But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.
The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.
Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.
said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
Where it started
Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.
In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.
“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”
“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”
In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.
“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.
CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.
But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.
“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.
Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.
“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.
Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.
Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”
Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.
The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
The aftermath
The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.
Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.
“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.
Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.
Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.
“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”
Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.
The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.
That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.
But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.
But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.
But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”
Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.
“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).
For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.
But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.
More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.
“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”
In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.
But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.
The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.
Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.
said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
Where it started
Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.
In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.
“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”
“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”
In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.
“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.
CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.
But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.
“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.
Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.
“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.
Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.
Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”
Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.
The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
The aftermath
The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.
Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.
“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.
Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.
Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.
“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”
Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.
The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.
That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.
But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.
But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.
But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”
Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.
“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rashelle Bernal vaped and ended up in an induced coma for a week. She was one of almost 3,000 people who were hospitalized during 2019 and early 2020 with severe lung damage from vaping and became part of what is now known as the epidemic of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI).
For many, the EVALI epidemic is a distant, pre-COVID memory.
But the vaping-related injuries are still happening. And for Ms. Bernal, the aftermath is her reality. Her pulmonologist from that time described the harm from the vape ingredients as an oil spill in her lungs. Eventually, the toxins would probably clear. But she will likely wrestle with the injuries for a very long time.
More than 3 years later, she frequently finds herself in the emergency department.
“If I get sick, if there’s anything that irritates my lungs – it could be something as simple as pollen in the air – it will cause me to get like a bacterial infection or other issues, and I can’t breathe,” Ms. Ms. Bernal, now 30, said in a recent interview. “I get really winded, to the point where I’ll walk up the stairs and I feel like I just ran a mile.”
In 2019 and 2020, a media firestorm erupted as hospitals notified the public of outbreaks of vaping-related lung injuries. News headlines reported e-cigarettes were killing teens from Texas to the Bronx. Investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked most of the cases to vitamin E acetate, an additive in illicit cannabis vaping products intended to promote the metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The agency stopped tracking EVALI in February 2020.
But 2 months later, in April 2020, the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics implemented a diagnostic code, U07.0, for health care professionals in the United States to diagnose EVALI for the first time. The code is also used for lung damage related to use of electronic cigarettes and “dabbing” – a method of inhaling cannabis. Damage could include inflammation of the lungs, pulmonary hemorrhage, and eosinophilic pneumonia.
The incidence of these diagnoses appears to have risen sharply since 2020. In the last three months of 2020, a total of 11,300 medical claims included the U07.0 code. That figure rose to 22,000 in 2021 and hit 31,600 in 2022, according to data compiled for and provided to Medscape by Komodo Health, a health care technology company that holds a database of more than 330 million U.S. patients from Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers’ medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims.
Harm from vaping, including EVALI, has continued.
said Usha Periyanayagam, MD, MPH, head of clinic product and real-world evidence for Komodo and a former emergency medicine physician.
Where it started
Devika Rao, MD, a pediatric pulmonology specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, has cared for most of her EVALI patients in the hospital, with the most recent case in early 2023. But in January, for the first time, she saw an EVALI patient in an outpatient clinic. The person had not been admitted to the hospital – like most were pre-pandemic. And like most who were seen during the pandemic, this patient had milder symptoms, not requiring intubation or take-home oxygen.
In 2019 and the beginning of 2020, many EVALI patients who were eventually hospitalized first sought help at urgent care centers or with primary care doctors and were presumed to have pneumonia or gastroenteritis and sent home.
“But they got worse, and they would present to our emergency room; their chest X-rays and CT scans showed extensive lung disease,” Dr. Rao said, adding that the damage was striking among patients all under age 18. “They were short of breath. Their oxygen levels were low. They had diminished lung function. And they had a lot of GI issues like abdominal pain and weight loss from nausea and vomiting.”
“These overwhelming inflammatory reactions that we see with EVALI,” said Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and a tobacco use researcher. “You might find some microvascular changes with normal inhaling of smoke or aerosol, but you’re not going to find macro changes like we see with the EVALI.”
In late 2019, images of the CT scans of patients with EVALI were published, grabbing the attention of Arun Kannappan, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary sciences and critical care at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora. Dr. Kannappan knew a patient with such severe lung damage could develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, which means a patient would be put on a ventilator because their inflamed lungs could not oxygenate blood.
“That confers within somewhere between 30% to 50% chance of dying; it made all of the pulmonary specialists really turn their heads to make sure that we keep a lookout for it,” said Dr. Kannappan.
CT scans of lungs proved to be a critical diagnostic tool for doctors. Most of the images from patients showed acute inflammation and diffuse lung damage. Ehab Ali, MD, a critical care and pulmonary disease medicine specialist in Louisville, Ky., said the damage was often spread across both lungs in many areas and appeared opaque and hazy, known as “ground glass.” COVID-19, meanwhile, appeared differently in lung scans, often with damage that was more isolated.
But many diseases carry a “ground glass” appearance, with many potential causes, like infections, cigarette smoke, or an autoimmune condition.
“Before you even talk to the patient, you can immediately put it in your mind that ‘I’m going to ask this patient if they vape,’ when I see the distribution of ground glass appearance,” Dr. Ali said.
Dr. Ali said other factors, like the age of the patient – about three-quarters of EVALI patients are under age 34, according to the CDC – would spur him to ask about vaping. But because so many patients were young, discerning vape usage wasn’t always easy.
“When you’re talking to teenagers, if you ask them upon admission, with the parents in the room, they’re going say ‘no,’ ” said Rachel Boykan, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s. She added that her hospital is still seeing cases.
Dr. Rao said it often takes two to three people asking a patient about any vape usage before they confess.
Ms. Bernal, who was 27 at the time of her hospital admission for EVALI, said she bought vapes with THC at a retail shop in California. She’d been a traditional marijuana smoker, using the leaf product, but switched when someone told her it was healthier to vape THC than inhale smoke from burned marijuana leaves into her lungs. “I thought this was safe.”
Dr. Rao and her colleagues recently published a study of 41 teenage patients with EVALI who were seen at Children’s Medical Center Dallas between December 2018 and July 2021. All but one reported using e-cigarettes containing THC, and the CDC in its most recent report from February 2020 said about 80% of patients had used vapes containing THC.
The CDC also found that vitamin E acetate, an oily substance that allows THC to travel from the lungs to the brain quickly and an ingredient used in the food and cosmetics industries, was found in many of the lungs of EVALI patients, though not all.
The aftermath
The outcomes of the thousands of patients who had EVALI – and those who may still be developing it – are largely untracked.
Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, director at the Stanford (Calif.) Reach Lab that bears her name and a researcher on tobacco in youth, said she and many of her colleagues are frustrated that the CDC is not continuing to collect data on EVALI.
“I know a lot of colleagues who’ve said that they’re still seeing EVALI, but because of COVID-19 they stopped collecting the data. And that’s been very frustrating because it’s hard to say whether the kinds of lung issues you’re having are related to e-cigarettes, generally, or EVALI,” Dr. Halpern-Felsher said.
Researchers and doctors affiliated with the American Thoracic Society published a report with solutions on how to better track EVALI. They recommended that a national case registry and biorepository be created.
Doctors also worry that many cases were missed. Dr. Boykan said that while protocol dictated nurses and other clinicians ask about a history of vaping – a key part of EVALI diagnosis – many did not. Dr. Ali, the Louisville critical care physician, said EVALI symptoms of nausea, cough, and fever are associated with viral infections.
“I’m sure that some of these cases might be discharged from the emergency room as a virus,” Dr. Ali said. “Most of the time patients would get prescribed steroids for viral infections, which may help EVALI patients even though it’s never been studied.”
Dr. Rao also said the treatment regimen at Children’s MC Dallas, which included high doses of intravenous steroids, seemed to help. But the best management approach for treatment, or long-term follow up care, has not been studied.
The report in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society said prospective studies are showing that a significant portion of patients with EVALI experience prolonged respiratory issues and cognitive and mood impairment. Dr. Rao said a common thread for many of her EVALI patients has been significant stress in their lives with school or family, which led them to vape in an attempt to reduce stress.
That was certainly the case for Ms. Bernal before her hospital admission. She had recently moved across the country for her husband’s job, was trying to buy a house, and had spent months in a hotel with three children. She vaped to cope.
But she said her mental and cognitive health has worsened. Back in Louisville, she saw a neurologist, who told her that her brain had shrunk, she said. She hasn’t found a new neurologist in Portland, Ore., where her family moved a year after the EVALI episode.
But she often finds herself overwhelmed and overstimulated with tasks that she said she never had problems with before. She tears up while talking about the newfound limitations. She struggled to find a primary care physician who could medically manage her mental health and a counselor who can understand what she’s been through with EVALI.
But, “a lot of doctors aren’t educated in it, and they don’t know how to respond or they don’t know what to do,” Ms. Bernal said. “And that makes me feel like, I guess, what I had wasn’t important.”
Ms. Bernal does have a new pulmonologist and is going in for a round of pulmonary tests soon because she often finds herself unable to breathe while completing simple tasks. She is tired of rushing to the ER. She wants answers, or some kind of treatment to help her feel normal again.
“I feel like this is my fault,” Ms. Bernal said. “Had I not smoked, I would be fine, and that’s hard to live with. Every day. Telling yourself, ‘It’s your fault.’ It’s been how many years now? And I still haven’t found peace yet. I don’t know if ever will.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sleep disturbances linked to post-COVID dyspnea
according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.
The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.
The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.
The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”
He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.
A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.
Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.
Subjective and objective measures of sleep
The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.
The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.
Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.
Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.
This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.
Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.
After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).
Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.
Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.
“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.
“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.
In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).
In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).
Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.
In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.
Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.
A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.
“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”
‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’
Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.
“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”
In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”
The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.
Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”
Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.
The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.
The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.
The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”
He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.
A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.
Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.
Subjective and objective measures of sleep
The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.
The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.
Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.
Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.
This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.
Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.
After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).
Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.
Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.
“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.
“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.
In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).
In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).
Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.
In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.
Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.
A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.
“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”
‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’
Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.
“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”
In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”
The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.
Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”
Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.
The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.
The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.
The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”
He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.
A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.
Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.
Subjective and objective measures of sleep
The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.
The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.
Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.
Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.
This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.
Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.
After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).
Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.
Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.
“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.
“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.
In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).
In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).
Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.
In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.
Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.
A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.
“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”
‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’
Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.
“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”
In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”
The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.
Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”
Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECCMID 2023
Metformin linked to reduced osteoarthritis risk
Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.
“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.
The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.
In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.
The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.
Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.
The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).
“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.
This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.
”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.
Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.
Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.
Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis
Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.
Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.
Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.
Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).
In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.
“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.
The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.
Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.
“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.
The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.
In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.
The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.
Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.
The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).
“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.
This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.
”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.
Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.
Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.
Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis
Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.
Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.
Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.
Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).
In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.
“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.
The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.
Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.
“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.
The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.
In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.
The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.
Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.
The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).
“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.
This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.
”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.
Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.
Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.
Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis
Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.
Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.
Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.
Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).
In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.
“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.
The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN AND OARSI 2023
USPSTF releases updated recommendations on skin cancer screening
.
This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.
“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”
Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”
The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.
Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.
There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.
In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.
Thus, differences in anatomical distribution of skin cancers in in the various subpopulations needs to be considered when performing skin screening, they write. “Furthermore, while skin cancer risk is lower among people with darker skin pigmentation, survival is often worse for cancers like melanoma, highlighting the potential need for screening.”
“More data are needed, particularly regarding genetic and environmental risk factors for skin cancer in people with darker pigmentation, to help inform guidelines that can be broadly applied to the U.S. population,” add Dr. Asgari and Dr. Crane. “The diversity of the U.S. population extends also to geography, culture, and socioeconomic status, all of which affect skin cancer risk.”
Review of evidence
The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.
Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.
The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.
Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
Research is needed
In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.
The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”
Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”
Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.
“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”
The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.
None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
.
This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.
“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”
Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”
The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.
Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.
There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.
In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.
Thus, differences in anatomical distribution of skin cancers in in the various subpopulations needs to be considered when performing skin screening, they write. “Furthermore, while skin cancer risk is lower among people with darker skin pigmentation, survival is often worse for cancers like melanoma, highlighting the potential need for screening.”
“More data are needed, particularly regarding genetic and environmental risk factors for skin cancer in people with darker pigmentation, to help inform guidelines that can be broadly applied to the U.S. population,” add Dr. Asgari and Dr. Crane. “The diversity of the U.S. population extends also to geography, culture, and socioeconomic status, all of which affect skin cancer risk.”
Review of evidence
The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.
Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.
The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.
Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
Research is needed
In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.
The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”
Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”
Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.
“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”
The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.
None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
.
This final recommendation applies to the general public and is not meant for those at higher risk, such as people with a family history of skin cancer or who have any signs or symptoms, such as irregular moles.
“The new recommendations are consistent with those from 2016, and we are unable to balance benefits and harms,” said Task Force member Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, professor and vice chair of research in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening, and health care professionals should use their judgment when deciding whether or not to screen.”
Dr. Donahue told this news organization that this is a call for more research: “Our recommendations are for patients who present to primary care without symptoms, and after a careful assessment of benefit and harms, we didn’t have evidence to push us towards screening as a benefit. We did look at data from two large screening programs, but they were from Europe and not representative of the U.S. population. They also did not show a benefit for reducing melanoma-related mortality.”
The USPSTF final recommendation statement and corresponding evidence summary have been published online in JAMA, as well as on the USPSTF website.
Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, but there are different types that vary in their incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer, but they infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity, notes the USPTSF. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. An estimated 8,000 individuals in the United States will die of melanoma in 2023.
There are racial differences in melanoma incidence; it is about 30 times more common in White versus Black persons, but disease in persons with darker skin color tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. These disparities may be due to differences in risk factors, access to care, and clinical presentation.
In an accompanying editorial, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, point out that people with darker skin phenotypes also tend to be affected by skin cancers that are not associated with UV radiation, such as acral melanoma, which arises on the palms and soles, and skin cancers that arise in areas of chronic inflammation, such as wounds.
Thus, differences in anatomical distribution of skin cancers in in the various subpopulations needs to be considered when performing skin screening, they write. “Furthermore, while skin cancer risk is lower among people with darker skin pigmentation, survival is often worse for cancers like melanoma, highlighting the potential need for screening.”
“More data are needed, particularly regarding genetic and environmental risk factors for skin cancer in people with darker pigmentation, to help inform guidelines that can be broadly applied to the U.S. population,” add Dr. Asgari and Dr. Crane. “The diversity of the U.S. population extends also to geography, culture, and socioeconomic status, all of which affect skin cancer risk.”
Review of evidence
The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including evidence for both keratinocyte carcinoma (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and cutaneous melanoma.
Foundational evidence showed that the sensitivity of visual skin examination by a clinician to detect melanoma ranged from 40% to 70% and specificity ranged from 86% to 98%. Evidence that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual skin examination to detect keratinocyte carcinoma was limited and inconsistent. There were no new studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy for an asymptomatic screening population.
The USPSTF also reviewed 20 studies in 29 articles (n = 6,053,411). This included three nonrandomized studies evaluating two skin cancer screening programs in Germany, but results were inconsistent. In addition, the ecological and nonrandomized design of the studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn and the applicability to a U.S. population was difficult to assess because of differences in population diversity and health care delivery in the United States.
Other nonrandomized studies that looked at various outcomes, such as harms and stage at diagnosis and melanoma or all-cause mortality, also did not provide sufficient evidence to support screening.
Research is needed
In a second accompanying editorial published in JAMA Dermatology, Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP, of the division of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, pointed out that unlike other cancer screening programs, such as those for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, skin cancer screening programs are somewhat less organized.
The other programs focus on defined groups of the population, generally with easily identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, and family history, and importantly, there are always defined ages for initiation and halting of screening and intervals for screening frequency. None of these basic screening parameters have been widely adopted among dermatologists in the United States, he wrote. “One important reason why skin cancer screening has remained inconsistent is that it is not covered by Medicare or by many commercial insurance companies,” Dr. Adamson told this news organization. “The test, in this case the skin exam, is often performed as part of a routine dermatology visit.”
Dermatologists should take the lead on this, he said. “Dermatologists should push for a high quality prospective clinical trial of skin cancer screening, preferably in a high-risk population.”
Dr. Donahue agrees that research is needed, as noted in the recommendation. For example, studies are needed demonstrating consistent data of the effects of screening on morbidity and mortality or early detection of skin cancer, and clearer descriptions of skin color and inclusion of a full spectrum of skin colors in study participants. Clinical research is also needed on outcomes in participants that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.
“I hope funding agencies will be interested in this area of study,” she said. “We put out the whole systematic review and point out the gaps. We need consistent evidence in detecting cancer early and reducing complications from skin cancer.”
The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.
None of the USPSTF authors report any disclosures. Dr. Asgari reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Crane did not make any disclosures. Dr. Adamson reported serving as an expert reviewer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force skin cancer screening report, as well as support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Dermatology Foundation Public Health Career Development Award, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and Meredith’s Mission for Melanoma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.