CHEST Physician

Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.

Two valves placed by minimally invasive surgery received regulatory approval 8 years ago, but they are not widely used to this day.

The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.

The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.

Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.

The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A Neglected Alternative

The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.

Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.

The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”

That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.

In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).

There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.

The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
 

Quicker Recovery

Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.

“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.

Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.

“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.

Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”

But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
 

A Viable Option

This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”

Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.

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

Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.

Two valves placed by minimally invasive surgery received regulatory approval 8 years ago, but they are not widely used to this day.

The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.

The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.

Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.

The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A Neglected Alternative

The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.

Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.

The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”

That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.

In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).

There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.

The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
 

Quicker Recovery

Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.

“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.

Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.

“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.

Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”

But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
 

A Viable Option

This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”

Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.

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

Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.

Two valves placed by minimally invasive surgery received regulatory approval 8 years ago, but they are not widely used to this day.

The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.

The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.

Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.

The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A Neglected Alternative

The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.

Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.

The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”

That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.

In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).

There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.

The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
 

Quicker Recovery

Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.

“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.

Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.

“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.

Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”

But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
 

A Viable Option

This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”

Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Irregular sleep duration was associated with a higher risk for diabetes in middle-aged to older adults in a new UK Biobank study.

The analysis of more than 84,000 participants with 7-day accelerometry data suggested that individuals with the most irregular sleep duration patterns had a 34% higher risk for diabetes compared with their peers who had more consistent sleep patterns.

“It’s recommended to have 7-9 hours of nightly sleep, but what is not considered much in policy guidelines or at the clinical level is how regularly that’s needed,” Sina Kianersi, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview. “What our study added is that it’s not just the duration but keeping it consistent. Patients can reduce their risk of diabetes by maintaining their 7-9 hours of sleep, not just for 1 night but throughout life.”

The study was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

Modifiable Lifestyle Factor

Researchers analyzed data from 84,421 UK Biobank participants who were free of diabetes when they provided accelerometer data in 2013-2015 and who were followed for a median of 7.5 years (622,080 person-years).

Participants had an average age of 62 years, 57% were women, 97% were White individuals, and 50% were employed in non–shift work jobs.

Sleep duration variability was quantified by the within-person standard deviation (SD) of 7-night accelerometer-measured sleep duration.

Participants with higher sleep duration SD were younger and more likely to be women, shift workers, or current smokers; those who reported definite “evening” chronotype (natural preference of the body to sleep at a certain time); those having lower socioeconomic status, higher body mass index, and shorter mean sleep duration; and were less likely to be White individuals.

In addition, a family history of diabetes and of depression was more prevalent among these participants.

A total of 2058 incident diabetes cases occurred during follow-up.

After adjustment for age, sex, and race, compared with a sleep duration SD ≤ 30 minutes, the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 for 31-45 minutes, 1.28 for 46-60 minutes, 1.54 for 61-90 minutes, and 1.59 for ≥ 91 minutes.

After the initial adjustment, individuals with a sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes had a 34% higher diabetes risk. However, further adjustment for lifestyle, comorbidities, environmental factors, and adiposity attenuated the association — ie, the HR comparing sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes was 1.11.

Furthermore, researchers found that the association between sleep duration and diabetes was stronger among individuals with lower diabetes polygenic risk score. 

“One possible explanation for this finding is that the impact of sleep irregularity on diabetes risk may be less noticeable in individuals with a high genetic predisposition, where genetic factors dominate,” Dr. Kianersi said. “However, it is important to note that these sleep-gene interaction effects were not consistently observed across different measures and gene-related variables. This is something that remains to be further studied.”

Nevertheless, he added, “I want to emphasize that the association between irregular sleep duration and increased diabetes risk was evident across all levels of diabetes polygenic risk scores.”

The association also was stronger with longer sleep duration. The authors suggested that longer sleep duration “might reduce daylight exposure, which could, in turn, give rise to circadian disruption.”

Overall, Dr. Kianersi said, “Our study identified a modifiable lifestyle factor that can help lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

The study had several limitations. There was a time lag of a median of 5 years between sleep duration measurements and covariate assessments, which might bias lifestyle behaviors that may vary over time. In addition, a single 7-day sleep duration measurement may not capture long-term sleep patterns. A constrained random sampling approach was used to select participants, raising the potential of selection bias.
 

Regular Sleep Routine Best

Ana Krieger, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Sleep Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented on the study for this news organization. “This is a very interesting study, as it adds to the literature,” she said. “Previous research studies have shown metabolic abnormalities with variations in sleep time and duration.”

“This particular study evaluated a large sample of patients in the UK which were mostly White middle-aged and may not be representative of the general population,” she noted. “A similar study in a Hispanic/Latino group failed to demonstrate any significant association between sleep timing variability and incidence of diabetes. It would be desirable to see if prospective studies are able to demonstrate a reduction in diabetes risk by implementing a more regular sleep routine.”

The importance of the body’s natural circadian rhythm in regulating and anchoring many physiological processes was highlighted by the 2017 Nobel Prize of Medicine, which was awarded to three researchers in circadian biology, she pointed out.

“Alterations in the circadian rhythm are known to affect mood regulation, gastrointestinal function, and alertness, among other factors,” she said. “Keeping a regular sleep routine will help to improve our circadian rhythm and better regulate many processes, including our metabolism and appetite-controlling hormones.”

Notably, a study published online in Diabetologia in a racially and economically diverse US population also found that adults with persistent suboptimal sleep durations (< 7 or > 9 hours nightly over a mean of 5 years) were more likely to develop incident diabetes. The strongest association was found among participants reporting extreme changes and higher variability in their sleep durations.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01HL155395) and the UKB project 85501. Dr. Kianersi was supported by the American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Kianersi and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Irregular sleep duration was associated with a higher risk for diabetes in middle-aged to older adults in a new UK Biobank study.

The analysis of more than 84,000 participants with 7-day accelerometry data suggested that individuals with the most irregular sleep duration patterns had a 34% higher risk for diabetes compared with their peers who had more consistent sleep patterns.

“It’s recommended to have 7-9 hours of nightly sleep, but what is not considered much in policy guidelines or at the clinical level is how regularly that’s needed,” Sina Kianersi, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview. “What our study added is that it’s not just the duration but keeping it consistent. Patients can reduce their risk of diabetes by maintaining their 7-9 hours of sleep, not just for 1 night but throughout life.”

The study was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

Modifiable Lifestyle Factor

Researchers analyzed data from 84,421 UK Biobank participants who were free of diabetes when they provided accelerometer data in 2013-2015 and who were followed for a median of 7.5 years (622,080 person-years).

Participants had an average age of 62 years, 57% were women, 97% were White individuals, and 50% were employed in non–shift work jobs.

Sleep duration variability was quantified by the within-person standard deviation (SD) of 7-night accelerometer-measured sleep duration.

Participants with higher sleep duration SD were younger and more likely to be women, shift workers, or current smokers; those who reported definite “evening” chronotype (natural preference of the body to sleep at a certain time); those having lower socioeconomic status, higher body mass index, and shorter mean sleep duration; and were less likely to be White individuals.

In addition, a family history of diabetes and of depression was more prevalent among these participants.

A total of 2058 incident diabetes cases occurred during follow-up.

After adjustment for age, sex, and race, compared with a sleep duration SD ≤ 30 minutes, the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 for 31-45 minutes, 1.28 for 46-60 minutes, 1.54 for 61-90 minutes, and 1.59 for ≥ 91 minutes.

After the initial adjustment, individuals with a sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes had a 34% higher diabetes risk. However, further adjustment for lifestyle, comorbidities, environmental factors, and adiposity attenuated the association — ie, the HR comparing sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes was 1.11.

Furthermore, researchers found that the association between sleep duration and diabetes was stronger among individuals with lower diabetes polygenic risk score. 

“One possible explanation for this finding is that the impact of sleep irregularity on diabetes risk may be less noticeable in individuals with a high genetic predisposition, where genetic factors dominate,” Dr. Kianersi said. “However, it is important to note that these sleep-gene interaction effects were not consistently observed across different measures and gene-related variables. This is something that remains to be further studied.”

Nevertheless, he added, “I want to emphasize that the association between irregular sleep duration and increased diabetes risk was evident across all levels of diabetes polygenic risk scores.”

The association also was stronger with longer sleep duration. The authors suggested that longer sleep duration “might reduce daylight exposure, which could, in turn, give rise to circadian disruption.”

Overall, Dr. Kianersi said, “Our study identified a modifiable lifestyle factor that can help lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

The study had several limitations. There was a time lag of a median of 5 years between sleep duration measurements and covariate assessments, which might bias lifestyle behaviors that may vary over time. In addition, a single 7-day sleep duration measurement may not capture long-term sleep patterns. A constrained random sampling approach was used to select participants, raising the potential of selection bias.
 

Regular Sleep Routine Best

Ana Krieger, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Sleep Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented on the study for this news organization. “This is a very interesting study, as it adds to the literature,” she said. “Previous research studies have shown metabolic abnormalities with variations in sleep time and duration.”

“This particular study evaluated a large sample of patients in the UK which were mostly White middle-aged and may not be representative of the general population,” she noted. “A similar study in a Hispanic/Latino group failed to demonstrate any significant association between sleep timing variability and incidence of diabetes. It would be desirable to see if prospective studies are able to demonstrate a reduction in diabetes risk by implementing a more regular sleep routine.”

The importance of the body’s natural circadian rhythm in regulating and anchoring many physiological processes was highlighted by the 2017 Nobel Prize of Medicine, which was awarded to three researchers in circadian biology, she pointed out.

“Alterations in the circadian rhythm are known to affect mood regulation, gastrointestinal function, and alertness, among other factors,” she said. “Keeping a regular sleep routine will help to improve our circadian rhythm and better regulate many processes, including our metabolism and appetite-controlling hormones.”

Notably, a study published online in Diabetologia in a racially and economically diverse US population also found that adults with persistent suboptimal sleep durations (< 7 or > 9 hours nightly over a mean of 5 years) were more likely to develop incident diabetes. The strongest association was found among participants reporting extreme changes and higher variability in their sleep durations.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01HL155395) and the UKB project 85501. Dr. Kianersi was supported by the American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Kianersi and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Irregular sleep duration was associated with a higher risk for diabetes in middle-aged to older adults in a new UK Biobank study.

The analysis of more than 84,000 participants with 7-day accelerometry data suggested that individuals with the most irregular sleep duration patterns had a 34% higher risk for diabetes compared with their peers who had more consistent sleep patterns.

“It’s recommended to have 7-9 hours of nightly sleep, but what is not considered much in policy guidelines or at the clinical level is how regularly that’s needed,” Sina Kianersi, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview. “What our study added is that it’s not just the duration but keeping it consistent. Patients can reduce their risk of diabetes by maintaining their 7-9 hours of sleep, not just for 1 night but throughout life.”

The study was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

Modifiable Lifestyle Factor

Researchers analyzed data from 84,421 UK Biobank participants who were free of diabetes when they provided accelerometer data in 2013-2015 and who were followed for a median of 7.5 years (622,080 person-years).

Participants had an average age of 62 years, 57% were women, 97% were White individuals, and 50% were employed in non–shift work jobs.

Sleep duration variability was quantified by the within-person standard deviation (SD) of 7-night accelerometer-measured sleep duration.

Participants with higher sleep duration SD were younger and more likely to be women, shift workers, or current smokers; those who reported definite “evening” chronotype (natural preference of the body to sleep at a certain time); those having lower socioeconomic status, higher body mass index, and shorter mean sleep duration; and were less likely to be White individuals.

In addition, a family history of diabetes and of depression was more prevalent among these participants.

A total of 2058 incident diabetes cases occurred during follow-up.

After adjustment for age, sex, and race, compared with a sleep duration SD ≤ 30 minutes, the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 for 31-45 minutes, 1.28 for 46-60 minutes, 1.54 for 61-90 minutes, and 1.59 for ≥ 91 minutes.

After the initial adjustment, individuals with a sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes had a 34% higher diabetes risk. However, further adjustment for lifestyle, comorbidities, environmental factors, and adiposity attenuated the association — ie, the HR comparing sleep duration SD of > 60 vs ≤ 60 minutes was 1.11.

Furthermore, researchers found that the association between sleep duration and diabetes was stronger among individuals with lower diabetes polygenic risk score. 

“One possible explanation for this finding is that the impact of sleep irregularity on diabetes risk may be less noticeable in individuals with a high genetic predisposition, where genetic factors dominate,” Dr. Kianersi said. “However, it is important to note that these sleep-gene interaction effects were not consistently observed across different measures and gene-related variables. This is something that remains to be further studied.”

Nevertheless, he added, “I want to emphasize that the association between irregular sleep duration and increased diabetes risk was evident across all levels of diabetes polygenic risk scores.”

The association also was stronger with longer sleep duration. The authors suggested that longer sleep duration “might reduce daylight exposure, which could, in turn, give rise to circadian disruption.”

Overall, Dr. Kianersi said, “Our study identified a modifiable lifestyle factor that can help lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

The study had several limitations. There was a time lag of a median of 5 years between sleep duration measurements and covariate assessments, which might bias lifestyle behaviors that may vary over time. In addition, a single 7-day sleep duration measurement may not capture long-term sleep patterns. A constrained random sampling approach was used to select participants, raising the potential of selection bias.
 

Regular Sleep Routine Best

Ana Krieger, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Sleep Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented on the study for this news organization. “This is a very interesting study, as it adds to the literature,” she said. “Previous research studies have shown metabolic abnormalities with variations in sleep time and duration.”

“This particular study evaluated a large sample of patients in the UK which were mostly White middle-aged and may not be representative of the general population,” she noted. “A similar study in a Hispanic/Latino group failed to demonstrate any significant association between sleep timing variability and incidence of diabetes. It would be desirable to see if prospective studies are able to demonstrate a reduction in diabetes risk by implementing a more regular sleep routine.”

The importance of the body’s natural circadian rhythm in regulating and anchoring many physiological processes was highlighted by the 2017 Nobel Prize of Medicine, which was awarded to three researchers in circadian biology, she pointed out.

“Alterations in the circadian rhythm are known to affect mood regulation, gastrointestinal function, and alertness, among other factors,” she said. “Keeping a regular sleep routine will help to improve our circadian rhythm and better regulate many processes, including our metabolism and appetite-controlling hormones.”

Notably, a study published online in Diabetologia in a racially and economically diverse US population also found that adults with persistent suboptimal sleep durations (< 7 or > 9 hours nightly over a mean of 5 years) were more likely to develop incident diabetes. The strongest association was found among participants reporting extreme changes and higher variability in their sleep durations.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01HL155395) and the UKB project 85501. Dr. Kianersi was supported by the American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Kianersi and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Ahmad Reza Djalali, an Iranian-Swedish physician specializing in disaster medicine, has begun a hunger strike after being sentenced to death in 2017.

Last year, Iran set a grim record, leading the world in executions. The country carried out at least 853 executions, which accounted for three quarters of the officially recorded executions worldwide. The Iranian government uses the death penalty to intimidate political opponents, especially since the women’s uprising in 2022, and to exert pressure on Western states in diplomatic standoffs.

Among the thousands of political prisoners currently on death row in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison is Dr. Djalali, a 52-year-old physician.

He emigrated to Sweden in 2009 and joined the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Over the years, he became one of Europe’s leading experts in disaster medicine. His work has been cited more than 700 times in medical literature, and he played a key role in establishing the emergency and disaster research center at the University of Piedmont.

In Italy, Denmark, and Sweden, Dr. Djalali helped hospitals and healthcare professionals in preparing for earthquakes, nuclear accidents, and terrorist attacks and designed several disaster medicine training programs.
 

‘Spreading Corruption’

Despite settling in Sweden with his family, Dr. Djalali never forgot his Iranian roots. His doctoral thesis was dedicated to the victims of the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran, which killed 23,000 people. He expressed a desire to share his knowledge with his Iranian colleagues to help people. So when he was invited to participate in a 2016 conference at the University of Tehran, he accepted without hesitation.

Unfortunately, this decision had severe consequences. On April 25, 2016, as he was concluding his trip to Iran, the researcher was arrested by intelligence agents. After being held incommunicado for several days, he was officially accused of passing confidential information to Israeli intelligence services. According to his family, this accusation was baseless. They believed he was targeted for refusing to work for Iranian intelligence services in Europe.

On October 21, 2017, Dr. Djalali was sentenced to death for “spreading corruption on Earth,” a vague charge often used by Islamic courts against those who allegedly have challenged the regime. A few days later, a video of his “confessions” was broadcast on Iranian television. These confessions were coerced; Dr. Djalali later revealed that Iranian police had threatened to harm his mother in Iran and his family in Sweden.

Since then, Dr. Djalali and his loved ones have anxiously awaited the moment when the regime might carry out the sentence. Several times over the years, he has seemed on the verge of execution, only to receive a last-minute reprieve each time.

His imprisonment has taken a severe toll on his physical and mental health. He has reportedly lost 24 kg since his incarceration, and his family, who receive sporadic updates, suspect he has leukemia. Despite his deteriorating condition, the authorities have refused him access to a hematologist.
 

‘Forgotten’ in Exchange

The international medical community has rallied to secure Dr. Djalali’s release, but their efforts have so far been fruitless. The United Nations, the European Union, Amnesty International, several universities, and the World Medical Association have called for his release. In 2018, Sweden granted him citizenship in an attempt to increase pressure on Tehran, but Iranian law does not recognize dual citizenship.

On June 16, after nearly 7 years on death row, Dr. Djalali informed his family that he had begun a hunger strike. “It’s the only way to make my voice heard in the world,” he explained. “As a doctor, Ahmad Reza knows all too well that his fragile physical state makes a hunger strike potentially fatal, but he sees no other option. He suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, bradycardia, hypotension, chronic gastritis, anemia, and extreme weight loss following his two previous hunger strikes,” his wife told the press.

Aside from a potential (and unlikely) act of clemency by the Iranian authorities, Dr. Djalali’s best hope lies in a prisoner exchange. The Iranian government often imprisons foreign nationals to exchange them for Iranians detained in Western countries.

On June 15, Sweden agreed to release an Iranian dignitary serving a life sentence in exchange for the release of Swedish nationals detained in Iran. For a long time, Dr. Djalali’s family had hoped he would be included in this exchange.

However, to avoid jeopardizing the deal, the Swedish prime minister chose to accept the release of only two other Swedish nationals, leaving Dr. Djalali to his grim fate. “Mr Prime Minister, you have decided to abandon me at the enormous risk of being executed,” Dr. Djalali responded bitterly, knowing he could be hanged at any moment.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Ahmad Reza Djalali, an Iranian-Swedish physician specializing in disaster medicine, has begun a hunger strike after being sentenced to death in 2017.

Last year, Iran set a grim record, leading the world in executions. The country carried out at least 853 executions, which accounted for three quarters of the officially recorded executions worldwide. The Iranian government uses the death penalty to intimidate political opponents, especially since the women’s uprising in 2022, and to exert pressure on Western states in diplomatic standoffs.

Among the thousands of political prisoners currently on death row in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison is Dr. Djalali, a 52-year-old physician.

He emigrated to Sweden in 2009 and joined the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Over the years, he became one of Europe’s leading experts in disaster medicine. His work has been cited more than 700 times in medical literature, and he played a key role in establishing the emergency and disaster research center at the University of Piedmont.

In Italy, Denmark, and Sweden, Dr. Djalali helped hospitals and healthcare professionals in preparing for earthquakes, nuclear accidents, and terrorist attacks and designed several disaster medicine training programs.
 

‘Spreading Corruption’

Despite settling in Sweden with his family, Dr. Djalali never forgot his Iranian roots. His doctoral thesis was dedicated to the victims of the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran, which killed 23,000 people. He expressed a desire to share his knowledge with his Iranian colleagues to help people. So when he was invited to participate in a 2016 conference at the University of Tehran, he accepted without hesitation.

Unfortunately, this decision had severe consequences. On April 25, 2016, as he was concluding his trip to Iran, the researcher was arrested by intelligence agents. After being held incommunicado for several days, he was officially accused of passing confidential information to Israeli intelligence services. According to his family, this accusation was baseless. They believed he was targeted for refusing to work for Iranian intelligence services in Europe.

On October 21, 2017, Dr. Djalali was sentenced to death for “spreading corruption on Earth,” a vague charge often used by Islamic courts against those who allegedly have challenged the regime. A few days later, a video of his “confessions” was broadcast on Iranian television. These confessions were coerced; Dr. Djalali later revealed that Iranian police had threatened to harm his mother in Iran and his family in Sweden.

Since then, Dr. Djalali and his loved ones have anxiously awaited the moment when the regime might carry out the sentence. Several times over the years, he has seemed on the verge of execution, only to receive a last-minute reprieve each time.

His imprisonment has taken a severe toll on his physical and mental health. He has reportedly lost 24 kg since his incarceration, and his family, who receive sporadic updates, suspect he has leukemia. Despite his deteriorating condition, the authorities have refused him access to a hematologist.
 

‘Forgotten’ in Exchange

The international medical community has rallied to secure Dr. Djalali’s release, but their efforts have so far been fruitless. The United Nations, the European Union, Amnesty International, several universities, and the World Medical Association have called for his release. In 2018, Sweden granted him citizenship in an attempt to increase pressure on Tehran, but Iranian law does not recognize dual citizenship.

On June 16, after nearly 7 years on death row, Dr. Djalali informed his family that he had begun a hunger strike. “It’s the only way to make my voice heard in the world,” he explained. “As a doctor, Ahmad Reza knows all too well that his fragile physical state makes a hunger strike potentially fatal, but he sees no other option. He suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, bradycardia, hypotension, chronic gastritis, anemia, and extreme weight loss following his two previous hunger strikes,” his wife told the press.

Aside from a potential (and unlikely) act of clemency by the Iranian authorities, Dr. Djalali’s best hope lies in a prisoner exchange. The Iranian government often imprisons foreign nationals to exchange them for Iranians detained in Western countries.

On June 15, Sweden agreed to release an Iranian dignitary serving a life sentence in exchange for the release of Swedish nationals detained in Iran. For a long time, Dr. Djalali’s family had hoped he would be included in this exchange.

However, to avoid jeopardizing the deal, the Swedish prime minister chose to accept the release of only two other Swedish nationals, leaving Dr. Djalali to his grim fate. “Mr Prime Minister, you have decided to abandon me at the enormous risk of being executed,” Dr. Djalali responded bitterly, knowing he could be hanged at any moment.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Ahmad Reza Djalali, an Iranian-Swedish physician specializing in disaster medicine, has begun a hunger strike after being sentenced to death in 2017.

Last year, Iran set a grim record, leading the world in executions. The country carried out at least 853 executions, which accounted for three quarters of the officially recorded executions worldwide. The Iranian government uses the death penalty to intimidate political opponents, especially since the women’s uprising in 2022, and to exert pressure on Western states in diplomatic standoffs.

Among the thousands of political prisoners currently on death row in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison is Dr. Djalali, a 52-year-old physician.

He emigrated to Sweden in 2009 and joined the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Over the years, he became one of Europe’s leading experts in disaster medicine. His work has been cited more than 700 times in medical literature, and he played a key role in establishing the emergency and disaster research center at the University of Piedmont.

In Italy, Denmark, and Sweden, Dr. Djalali helped hospitals and healthcare professionals in preparing for earthquakes, nuclear accidents, and terrorist attacks and designed several disaster medicine training programs.
 

‘Spreading Corruption’

Despite settling in Sweden with his family, Dr. Djalali never forgot his Iranian roots. His doctoral thesis was dedicated to the victims of the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran, which killed 23,000 people. He expressed a desire to share his knowledge with his Iranian colleagues to help people. So when he was invited to participate in a 2016 conference at the University of Tehran, he accepted without hesitation.

Unfortunately, this decision had severe consequences. On April 25, 2016, as he was concluding his trip to Iran, the researcher was arrested by intelligence agents. After being held incommunicado for several days, he was officially accused of passing confidential information to Israeli intelligence services. According to his family, this accusation was baseless. They believed he was targeted for refusing to work for Iranian intelligence services in Europe.

On October 21, 2017, Dr. Djalali was sentenced to death for “spreading corruption on Earth,” a vague charge often used by Islamic courts against those who allegedly have challenged the regime. A few days later, a video of his “confessions” was broadcast on Iranian television. These confessions were coerced; Dr. Djalali later revealed that Iranian police had threatened to harm his mother in Iran and his family in Sweden.

Since then, Dr. Djalali and his loved ones have anxiously awaited the moment when the regime might carry out the sentence. Several times over the years, he has seemed on the verge of execution, only to receive a last-minute reprieve each time.

His imprisonment has taken a severe toll on his physical and mental health. He has reportedly lost 24 kg since his incarceration, and his family, who receive sporadic updates, suspect he has leukemia. Despite his deteriorating condition, the authorities have refused him access to a hematologist.
 

‘Forgotten’ in Exchange

The international medical community has rallied to secure Dr. Djalali’s release, but their efforts have so far been fruitless. The United Nations, the European Union, Amnesty International, several universities, and the World Medical Association have called for his release. In 2018, Sweden granted him citizenship in an attempt to increase pressure on Tehran, but Iranian law does not recognize dual citizenship.

On June 16, after nearly 7 years on death row, Dr. Djalali informed his family that he had begun a hunger strike. “It’s the only way to make my voice heard in the world,” he explained. “As a doctor, Ahmad Reza knows all too well that his fragile physical state makes a hunger strike potentially fatal, but he sees no other option. He suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, bradycardia, hypotension, chronic gastritis, anemia, and extreme weight loss following his two previous hunger strikes,” his wife told the press.

Aside from a potential (and unlikely) act of clemency by the Iranian authorities, Dr. Djalali’s best hope lies in a prisoner exchange. The Iranian government often imprisons foreign nationals to exchange them for Iranians detained in Western countries.

On June 15, Sweden agreed to release an Iranian dignitary serving a life sentence in exchange for the release of Swedish nationals detained in Iran. For a long time, Dr. Djalali’s family had hoped he would be included in this exchange.

However, to avoid jeopardizing the deal, the Swedish prime minister chose to accept the release of only two other Swedish nationals, leaving Dr. Djalali to his grim fate. “Mr Prime Minister, you have decided to abandon me at the enormous risk of being executed,” Dr. Djalali responded bitterly, knowing he could be hanged at any moment.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Individuals with preexisting sleep disturbances including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), insomnia, and abnormal sleep duration showed significantly increased vulnerability to COVID-19, as well as an increased risk for hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID, according to new data from more than 8 million individuals.

Sleep disturbances, though common in the general population, are generally overlooked as a risk factor for COVID-19, wrote Jiawei Zhou, MD, of The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Most previous research has focused on the impact of COVID-19 on sleep disturbances, not the impact of sleep disturbances on COVID-19, and most studies on the latter topic have focused only on OSA, the researchers wrote.

In a meta-analysis published in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science, the researchers identified 48 observational studies published between October 27, 2023, and May 8, 2024, that involved COVID-19 and sleep disturbances including OSA, insomnia, abnormal sleep duration, and night shift work, among others. The study population included 8,664,026 adults.

The primary outcomes were COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID. Overall, the presence of preexisting sleep disturbances was associated with a significantly increased risk for each of these outcomes, with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.12, 1.25, 1.45, and 1.36, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the association between preexisting sleep disturbances and greater susceptibility and hospitalization was higher in younger adults (younger than 60 years) than in older adults (aged 60 years and older), but the risk for death was lower in younger adults with sleep disturbances than in older adults with sleep disturbances (OR, 1.22 vs OR, 2.07, respectively). Men with sleep disturbances had a higher risk for COVID-19 mortality than women with sleep disturbances.

Preexisting sleep disturbances overall were significantly associated with long COVID and more so in a subgroup analysis of patients whose definition of long COVID was symptoms lasting 3 or more months vs those lasting 1 month (P = .029).

When the researchers broke down associations with COVID-19 outcomes and specific sleep disturbances, they found significant associations between OSA and all four primary outcomes. Abnormal sleep duration was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and long COVID. Night shift work was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization, and insomnia was associated with an increased risk for long COVID.

Although the exact mechanism behind the associations between preexisting sleep disturbances and COVID-19 outcomes is uncertain, persistent sleep deprivation could set the stage in various ways, including the promotion of elevated C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels, the researchers wrote.

“Overall, the compromised innate and adaptive immune functions combined with a persistent inflammatory state may explain the higher risk of susceptibility, severity, and longer recovery time observed in patients with sleep disturbances. Fortunately, early intervention for sleep disturbances could attenuate the adverse effects of COVID-19,” they noted in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational nature of the studies and the heterogeneity of outcomes, the researchers wrote. Looking ahead, randomized, controlled trials are needed to examine the effect of interventions for sleep disturbances in the prevention and course of COVID-19, they said.

However, the study is the first known to examine multiple types of sleep disturbances and their possible influences on the full clinical course of COVID-19 and support the need for early evaluation and intervention for individuals with sleep disturbances to reduce short-term and long-term effects of the disease, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Reflect the Need to Address Sleep Issues Early

Although the results of the current study were not surprising, “it is always worth doing meta-analyses to see if there is a potential signal in the published data to suggest a need for a new study,” Arun Chatterjee, MD, professor of pulmonary, critical care, allergy, and immunologic diseases at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Lack of sleep, whether acute active deprivation (zero sleep for one night) or subacute/chronic sleep debt, such as only 5 hours per night, has been demonstrated to affect lymphocyte proliferation, reduce immune globulin levels, increase inflammatory markers, shorten telomeres, and affect the immune system in various ways,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who was not involved in the meta-analysis.

The clinical takeaway from the current meta-analysis is that adequate sleep is important for various reasons, Dr. Chatterjee said. “Sleep disruption affects health across a spectrum of systems; adding an annual sleep wellness and screening event to healthcare visits is probably worth the investment,” he noted.

Much more is needed in the way of additional research, Dr. Chatterjee told this news organization. Notably, studies are needed to examine what sleep disruption does to immune status, as well as all other physiologic and mental health systems, he said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases of Liaoning Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Chatterjee had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with preexisting sleep disturbances including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), insomnia, and abnormal sleep duration showed significantly increased vulnerability to COVID-19, as well as an increased risk for hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID, according to new data from more than 8 million individuals.

Sleep disturbances, though common in the general population, are generally overlooked as a risk factor for COVID-19, wrote Jiawei Zhou, MD, of The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Most previous research has focused on the impact of COVID-19 on sleep disturbances, not the impact of sleep disturbances on COVID-19, and most studies on the latter topic have focused only on OSA, the researchers wrote.

In a meta-analysis published in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science, the researchers identified 48 observational studies published between October 27, 2023, and May 8, 2024, that involved COVID-19 and sleep disturbances including OSA, insomnia, abnormal sleep duration, and night shift work, among others. The study population included 8,664,026 adults.

The primary outcomes were COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID. Overall, the presence of preexisting sleep disturbances was associated with a significantly increased risk for each of these outcomes, with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.12, 1.25, 1.45, and 1.36, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the association between preexisting sleep disturbances and greater susceptibility and hospitalization was higher in younger adults (younger than 60 years) than in older adults (aged 60 years and older), but the risk for death was lower in younger adults with sleep disturbances than in older adults with sleep disturbances (OR, 1.22 vs OR, 2.07, respectively). Men with sleep disturbances had a higher risk for COVID-19 mortality than women with sleep disturbances.

Preexisting sleep disturbances overall were significantly associated with long COVID and more so in a subgroup analysis of patients whose definition of long COVID was symptoms lasting 3 or more months vs those lasting 1 month (P = .029).

When the researchers broke down associations with COVID-19 outcomes and specific sleep disturbances, they found significant associations between OSA and all four primary outcomes. Abnormal sleep duration was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and long COVID. Night shift work was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization, and insomnia was associated with an increased risk for long COVID.

Although the exact mechanism behind the associations between preexisting sleep disturbances and COVID-19 outcomes is uncertain, persistent sleep deprivation could set the stage in various ways, including the promotion of elevated C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels, the researchers wrote.

“Overall, the compromised innate and adaptive immune functions combined with a persistent inflammatory state may explain the higher risk of susceptibility, severity, and longer recovery time observed in patients with sleep disturbances. Fortunately, early intervention for sleep disturbances could attenuate the adverse effects of COVID-19,” they noted in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational nature of the studies and the heterogeneity of outcomes, the researchers wrote. Looking ahead, randomized, controlled trials are needed to examine the effect of interventions for sleep disturbances in the prevention and course of COVID-19, they said.

However, the study is the first known to examine multiple types of sleep disturbances and their possible influences on the full clinical course of COVID-19 and support the need for early evaluation and intervention for individuals with sleep disturbances to reduce short-term and long-term effects of the disease, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Reflect the Need to Address Sleep Issues Early

Although the results of the current study were not surprising, “it is always worth doing meta-analyses to see if there is a potential signal in the published data to suggest a need for a new study,” Arun Chatterjee, MD, professor of pulmonary, critical care, allergy, and immunologic diseases at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Lack of sleep, whether acute active deprivation (zero sleep for one night) or subacute/chronic sleep debt, such as only 5 hours per night, has been demonstrated to affect lymphocyte proliferation, reduce immune globulin levels, increase inflammatory markers, shorten telomeres, and affect the immune system in various ways,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who was not involved in the meta-analysis.

The clinical takeaway from the current meta-analysis is that adequate sleep is important for various reasons, Dr. Chatterjee said. “Sleep disruption affects health across a spectrum of systems; adding an annual sleep wellness and screening event to healthcare visits is probably worth the investment,” he noted.

Much more is needed in the way of additional research, Dr. Chatterjee told this news organization. Notably, studies are needed to examine what sleep disruption does to immune status, as well as all other physiologic and mental health systems, he said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases of Liaoning Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Chatterjee had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with preexisting sleep disturbances including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), insomnia, and abnormal sleep duration showed significantly increased vulnerability to COVID-19, as well as an increased risk for hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID, according to new data from more than 8 million individuals.

Sleep disturbances, though common in the general population, are generally overlooked as a risk factor for COVID-19, wrote Jiawei Zhou, MD, of The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Most previous research has focused on the impact of COVID-19 on sleep disturbances, not the impact of sleep disturbances on COVID-19, and most studies on the latter topic have focused only on OSA, the researchers wrote.

In a meta-analysis published in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science, the researchers identified 48 observational studies published between October 27, 2023, and May 8, 2024, that involved COVID-19 and sleep disturbances including OSA, insomnia, abnormal sleep duration, and night shift work, among others. The study population included 8,664,026 adults.

The primary outcomes were COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, mortality, and long COVID. Overall, the presence of preexisting sleep disturbances was associated with a significantly increased risk for each of these outcomes, with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.12, 1.25, 1.45, and 1.36, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the association between preexisting sleep disturbances and greater susceptibility and hospitalization was higher in younger adults (younger than 60 years) than in older adults (aged 60 years and older), but the risk for death was lower in younger adults with sleep disturbances than in older adults with sleep disturbances (OR, 1.22 vs OR, 2.07, respectively). Men with sleep disturbances had a higher risk for COVID-19 mortality than women with sleep disturbances.

Preexisting sleep disturbances overall were significantly associated with long COVID and more so in a subgroup analysis of patients whose definition of long COVID was symptoms lasting 3 or more months vs those lasting 1 month (P = .029).

When the researchers broke down associations with COVID-19 outcomes and specific sleep disturbances, they found significant associations between OSA and all four primary outcomes. Abnormal sleep duration was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and long COVID. Night shift work was associated with an increased risk for COVID-19 susceptibility and hospitalization, and insomnia was associated with an increased risk for long COVID.

Although the exact mechanism behind the associations between preexisting sleep disturbances and COVID-19 outcomes is uncertain, persistent sleep deprivation could set the stage in various ways, including the promotion of elevated C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels, the researchers wrote.

“Overall, the compromised innate and adaptive immune functions combined with a persistent inflammatory state may explain the higher risk of susceptibility, severity, and longer recovery time observed in patients with sleep disturbances. Fortunately, early intervention for sleep disturbances could attenuate the adverse effects of COVID-19,” they noted in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational nature of the studies and the heterogeneity of outcomes, the researchers wrote. Looking ahead, randomized, controlled trials are needed to examine the effect of interventions for sleep disturbances in the prevention and course of COVID-19, they said.

However, the study is the first known to examine multiple types of sleep disturbances and their possible influences on the full clinical course of COVID-19 and support the need for early evaluation and intervention for individuals with sleep disturbances to reduce short-term and long-term effects of the disease, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Reflect the Need to Address Sleep Issues Early

Although the results of the current study were not surprising, “it is always worth doing meta-analyses to see if there is a potential signal in the published data to suggest a need for a new study,” Arun Chatterjee, MD, professor of pulmonary, critical care, allergy, and immunologic diseases at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Lack of sleep, whether acute active deprivation (zero sleep for one night) or subacute/chronic sleep debt, such as only 5 hours per night, has been demonstrated to affect lymphocyte proliferation, reduce immune globulin levels, increase inflammatory markers, shorten telomeres, and affect the immune system in various ways,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who was not involved in the meta-analysis.

The clinical takeaway from the current meta-analysis is that adequate sleep is important for various reasons, Dr. Chatterjee said. “Sleep disruption affects health across a spectrum of systems; adding an annual sleep wellness and screening event to healthcare visits is probably worth the investment,” he noted.

Much more is needed in the way of additional research, Dr. Chatterjee told this news organization. Notably, studies are needed to examine what sleep disruption does to immune status, as well as all other physiologic and mental health systems, he said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases of Liaoning Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Chatterjee had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Your odds are 1 in 562,400.

Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.

Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.

“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”

This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.

Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.

Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
 

The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon

“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”

The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”

“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.

The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.

Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.

“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
 

The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician

Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”

When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.

While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.

“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”

Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.

“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”

Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.

And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
 

The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist

Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”

“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.

That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”

Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.

Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.

Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.

Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.

After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.

At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.

Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
 

The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon

Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.

The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.

Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”

Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.

At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”

As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.

“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.

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

Your odds are 1 in 562,400.

Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.

Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.

“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”

This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.

Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.

Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
 

The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon

“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”

The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”

“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.

The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.

Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.

“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
 

The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician

Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”

When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.

While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.

“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”

Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.

“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”

Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.

And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
 

The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist

Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”

“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.

That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”

Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.

Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.

Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.

Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.

After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.

At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.

Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
 

The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon

Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.

The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.

Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”

Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.

At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”

As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.

“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.

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

Your odds are 1 in 562,400.

Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.

Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.

“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”

This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.

Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.

Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
 

The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon

“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”

The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”

“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.

The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.

Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.

“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
 

The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician

Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”

When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.

While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.

“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”

Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.

“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”

Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.

And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
 

The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist

Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”

“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.

That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”

Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.

Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.

Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.

Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.

After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.

At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.

Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
 

The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon

Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.

The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.

Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”

Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.

At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”

As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.

“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.

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

Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.

An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.

“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”

The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
 

Widespread and Severe

Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.

To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.

Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.

Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.

Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.

As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.

The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.

“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”

For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
 

Addressing Systemic Issues

In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.

“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.

Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”

Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.

In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.

But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.

“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.

“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”

The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.

An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.

“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”

The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
 

Widespread and Severe

Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.

To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.

Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.

Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.

Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.

As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.

The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.

“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”

For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
 

Addressing Systemic Issues

In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.

“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.

Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”

Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.

In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.

But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.

“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.

“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”

The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.

An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.

“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”

The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
 

Widespread and Severe

Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.

To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.

Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.

Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.

Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.

As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.

The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.

“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”

For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
 

Addressing Systemic Issues

In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.

“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.

Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”

Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.

In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.

But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.

“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.

“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”

The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.