CHEST Physician

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in certain adult patients.

Specifically, the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was approved for patients whose disease has not progressed during or after concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Such EGFR mutations can be detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA approved osimertinib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with the same mutations in February. The EGFR-TKI also carries other indications, including as first-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
 

Trial Findings Supporting Latest Approval

AstraZeneca announced in June that osimertinib had been granted Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation for its newest indication.

The September 25 approval was based on findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled LAURA trial of 216 patients, which demonstrated improved median progression-free survival with osimertinib vs placebo (39.1 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.16). Overall survival results were immature at the most recent analysis, but “no trend towards a detriment was observed,” with 36% of prespecified deaths for the final analysis reported, according to an FDA press release.
 

Adverse Events

Study participants were randomized 2:1 to receive the osimertinib recommended dose of 80 mg given orally once daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were lymphopenia, leukopenia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, rash, diarrhea, nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, cough, and COVID-19 infection.

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

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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